The law is not a set of propositions, so this issue does not arise. The law is a linguistic artefact which requires interpretation to derive propositions, ie.,

The law is not a set of propositions, so this issue does not arise. The law is a linguistic artefact which requires interpretation to derive propositions, ie., pragmatics. The pragmatic context of interpretation, hemmed-in by precedent, dramatically narrows the range of admissible "legal propositions" in any given legal context. The idea that the law is, or should be, a canonical set of propositions is the real "myth" here, one espoused by people who haven't thought for a moment how such a set of propositions could ever be constructed.