2 ms·
> a necessary lubricant to get enough agreement It is unfortunate that our representatives are as such, that they don't strive for clarity, but I understand. T
by OutOfHere 2y ago
> a necessary lubricant to get enough agreement
It is unfortunate that our representatives are as such, that they don't strive for clarity, but I understand. To me, the lack of clarity is an "invalid state" that has no place in the rulebook.
> if a court decides at some future time that the law fails to accomplish the intent it should be struck down.
This would be very welcome, but it should require repeated testings in fibonacci years, not merely once. This means at 1, 2, 3, 5, ... years after the law was passed or updated.
- nathan_compton 2y agoOld laws are among the most likely to have deviated from their intended functionality. In my imaginary system, though, someone would have to raise the case to the courts, so it wouldn't be just happening all the time.