> And you don't have any problem with laws being ambiguous enough that you can't tell beforehand whether you're breaking the law? As long as you can tell befor

> And you don't have any problem with laws being ambiguous enough that you can't tell beforehand whether you're breaking the law? As long as you can tell beforehand whether you're getting close to breaking the law this is fine. The closer you get to possibly breaking the law the more exculpatory evidence you should be collecting to present to a court. > To say that its expected and even a good thing for our elected officials to pass ambiguous laws and our unelected courts to determine what that should mean with little to no input from the public is very confusing IMO. The government is there to work for us, not to define rules and enforce punishment in ways that are completely outside our democratic process of elections and representation. Sure. So what's your alternative? No laws at all? Only laws that can be precisely defined in a completely non-ambiguous manner (good luck with that [1])? I favor making sure that people know about jury nullification prior to becoming jurors. And also favor elected courts (which exist in many jurisdictions). [1] - I argued elsewhere that even the Constitutional requirement that the President by 35 years old or older is highly ambiguous (as per how the length of a year is defined, leap years, sidereal years, age at running for office, election to office, or assumption of office, etcetera), but hasn't been adjudicated because we haven't had any edge cases. Genuinely non-ambiguous laws don't exist, because every term can be argued over.