3 ms·
> The ... do not have the force of law So you're saying this part > the annotated version became the authoritative copy is wrong? Either way, you're descri
by andrewflnr 4y ago
> The ... do not have the force of law
So you're saying this part
> the annotated version became the authoritative copy
is wrong?
Either way, you're describing a situation where the state cheaped out in a way that deprives its residents of their right to know what law governs them. I still call that obvious.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 4y agoIt’s not wrong, but I’m this context “authoritative” doesn’t mean the whole thing is “legally operative.” Here is an example (reckless driving): https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2020/title-40/chapter-6/article-15/section-40-6-390/ https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2020/title-40/chapter-6... The first part, subsections (a) and (b) is the actual law. That’s the only legally operative part that defines what reckless driving is. In most states, that is the only thing that is published. The following sections are explanatory notes that don’t have the force of law and are not law. For example, it cross references relevant case law. In other states private companies will create these annotated versions of the legal code with these cross references, and those are definitely copyrightable.
- andrewflnr 4y agoThey wouldn't include the commentary in their official copies if they didn't intend for it to affect how the law is interpreted. That makes "legislation" vs "explanatory notes" a meaningless distinction. It has a direct effect on the actions of people with guns and badges, therefore we the people have a right to know.