4 ms·

> There are so many laws on the books, many of them horribly outdated, and legislatures are overworked / grid locked. Often, the only way for us to have a worki

> There are so many laws on the books, many of them horribly outdated, and legislatures are overworked / grid locked. Often, the only way for us to have a working body of law that makes sense is for the government to simply stop enforcing the outdated ones. Normalising this is a dangerous precedent. It leads to the situation where every citizen is technically a criminal according to the letter of the law, but it's not enforced as long as you don't stand out. But as soon as you annoy someone in government, they can choose to arrest and imprison you.

saas_co_de 9y ago
> Normalising this is a dangerous precedent Not really, and even if so, we are a few centuries too late to do anything about it. Having unenforceable laws in a necessity of how the legal system works. If a law is ruled to be unconstitutional it does not magically get removed from the books. That requires legislative action, but why waste time in the legislature on something with no practical effect?
- namelost 9y ago
  That is different, such laws are unenforceable because they have been ruled to be so by a court. The problem is with laws that are unenforced, but are still enforcable. If the situation of having unenforced laws becomes normalized, then legislatures will indeed not "waste time" removing them, and such laws will be only unenforced until some official decides they don't like you.
- mreome 9y ago
  I doubt that people whose lives/finances have been ruined defending themselves against vindictive/overzealous prosecutors and litigious citizens would agree that this is not a dangerous precedent. Being dragged through the courts based on outdated or unreasonably applied laws can ruin a person's finances or reputation even when they successfully defend themselves. The minors on trial for sex crimes for sending nude pictures of themselves, as well as innovative business being stifled buy outdated protectionist regulations, may also have something to say about it. Outdated, unreasonable, misinterpreted, and in some cases know unconstitutional laws, can be used as tools to attack and harass. The fact the Constitutional action is not being taken to remove these laws and regulations from the books is not an argument for them to continue existing, but rather an argument for the need to change how the government operates in regards to updating and clarifying the law.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

saas_co_de 9y ago

> Normalising this is a dangerous precedent Not really, and even if so, we are a few centuries too late to do anything about it. Having unenforceable laws in a necessity of how the legal system works. If a law is ruled to be unconstitutional it does not magically get removed from the books. That requires legislative action, but why waste time in the legislature on something with no practical effect?

namelost 9y ago
That is different, such laws are unenforceable because they have been ruled to be so by a court. The problem is with laws that are unenforced, but are still enforcable. If the situation of having unenforced laws becomes normalized, then legislatures will indeed not "waste time" removing them, and such laws will be only unenforced until some official decides they don't like you.
mreome 9y ago
I doubt that people whose lives/finances have been ruined defending themselves against vindictive/overzealous prosecutors and litigious citizens would agree that this is not a dangerous precedent. Being dragged through the courts based on outdated or unreasonably applied laws can ruin a person's finances or reputation even when they successfully defend themselves. The minors on trial for sex crimes for sending nude pictures of themselves, as well as innovative business being stifled buy outdated protectionist regulations, may also have something to say about it. Outdated, unreasonable, misinterpreted, and in some cases know unconstitutional laws, can be used as tools to attack and harass. The fact the Constitutional action is not being taken to remove these laws and regulations from the books is not an argument for them to continue existing, but rather an argument for the need to change how the government operates in regards to updating and clarifying the law.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]