That isn't a loophole, it is an interpretation. It isn't possible to have laws without an assumption that a reasonable person is interpreting them (which is 95%

That isn't a loophole, it is an interpretation. It isn't possible to have laws without an assumption that a reasonable person is interpreting them (which is 95% of the reasons why judges are involved). But we know that the interpretation phase has a lot of wiggle room (the US constitution is a regular parade of this sort of thing - the Roe v. Wade fight or the abuse of the commerce clause for example). When they go bad these things aren't loopholes as much as they are just ignoring the written law with a polite fiction and it is up to different interest groups to work out where the power lies to get what they want. Political reality vs. the theoretical rule of law ideal. But that is necessarily independent of what is written in the law itself. If a group has enough power to overrule the written law then what you write in the law won't be able to stop them.