As a law student myself I have to disgree. While in many cases legislators want no variability of interpretetion, in some few cases variability is intended (for

As a law student myself I have to disgree. While in many cases legislators want no variability of interpretetion, in some few cases variability is intended (for bad reasons, mostly). Lawyers actually like variability of interpretation, since it allows for flexible arguments. This is especially true for common law countries, where law is systematically interpreted by the courts, very often following arguments of lawyers and/or scholars. You see, language is a social construct and can never be as accurate as mathematics. You can define an interger very rigourously, but you cannot define language that way. Yes, there is grammar and such things. But it‘s very dynamic. And I didn‘t even start with „meaning“. There‘s a very large debate in philosophy about what that even is.