4 ms·
> Any kind of law that mentions a company by name should be automatically rejected, unless No "unless". No law should target a specific company or individual b
by JoshTriplett 3y ago
> Any kind of law that mentions a company by name should be automatically rejected, unless
No "unless". No law should target a specific company or individual by name, ever, whether to give them special exceptions or special permissions or special restrictions or anything else.
(They also shouldn't target specific companies by sufficiently-specific-description-it-only-applies-to-one-or-two-companies, either.)
- jacquesm 3y agoIf course they can: laws frequently cite specific cases and specific abuses in their supporting documentation in order to point out the exact intent of the law.
- pc86 3y agoLaws are not research papers, they don't need to cite sources.
- jacquesm 3y agoThe fact that they do not need to is true, but the typical law rests on a body of data and some of that data will be supplied with the bill depending on what the material is about. This is because most laws are created with specific goals and purposes in mind, they're not born finished and ready to be voted on derived from first principles, they usually exist to address something quite specific.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- JoshTriplett 3y agoI never said they "can't", I said they shouldn't. Also, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with citing something as an example in the argumentation around a bill enacting a law (unless it's by way of targeting them with polemic), but there is something fundamentally wrong with putting that in the legal code itself.
- pi-e-sigma 3y agoUS Congress has been passing acts concerning specific people or institutions, directly referenced by their name since its inception. It's called private laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress#Public_law,_private_law,_designation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress#Public_law,_pr...