3 ms·

> There's no exception in there that can be read as "unless it makes the job of the government really hard." Law is not like code, an algorithm that is follow

> There's no exception in there that can be read as "unless it makes the job of the government really hard." Law is not like code, an algorithm that is followed literally and logically. The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment is equally clear, but you can't yell fire in a dark, crowded movie theater. The Second Amendment does not differentiate cruise missiles from handguns, but you cannot own a cruise missile. I would not want it otherwise. The laws never will be written perfectly, so we need a system to deal with those flaws. Another way to think of it is that there are edge cases, many of which were not anticipated by people who wrote the code, some over 200 years ago. EDIT: Another way to think about it: If the law permits something horrible (e.g., 'sale of first-born children') because it was written poorly or unclearly, should the courts allow first-borns to be sold until Congress fixes it? What if the law explicitly allows something, such as denial of voting rights to an ethnic group?

anonymoushn 12y ago
In the SF bay area, I can "keep" but not "bear," and in many other locations in the U.S. it is illegal to possess the means of self-defense at all. The ability of policymakers to completely disregard the Constitution lets us enact policies preventing the ownership of cruise missiles, but it also lets them disarm citizens entirely, require people to verbally invoke the right to remain silent, and so on. We could do these things without disregarding the constitution. For instance, we could hold a constitutional convention and ban private ownership of cruise missiles, grenades, rocket launchers, SAMs, nuclear weapons, most 9mm handgun magazines used by police ("High capacity magazines"), and rifles that look scary but kill almost nobody. We could also repeal the 5th amendment. Instead of doing these things, we make them policy in contradiction of the law.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > For instance, we could hold a constitutional convention ... Instead of doing these things, we make them policy in contradiction of the law. I agree with the principle ... but: Imagine if updates to your software project required consensus of over 300 million people, sometimes about very heated questions. I think you would only do updates in extremis and otherwise use other mechanisms to resolve issues. Practically, how do we address this problem?
fleitz 12y ago
Yes, for example the founding fathers might not have thought of growing plants for personal consumption as interstate commerce, or building a private office towers as a public purpose, thankfully we have the SCOTUS to realize that growing plants for your own use is interstate commerce and that private office towers are public purposes. Whatever you're doing is probably illegal if the government wants it to be illegal, and legal if the government wants it to be legal. As most lawyers say, don't talk to the police, so I assume the best advice would be to encrypt your documents to the maximum extent possible, and have your lawyer sort it out in court.

anonymoushn 12y ago

In the SF bay area, I can "keep" but not "bear," and in many other locations in the U.S. it is illegal to possess the means of self-defense at all. The ability of policymakers to completely disregard the Constitution lets us enact policies preventing the ownership of cruise missiles, but it also lets them disarm citizens entirely, require people to verbally invoke the right to remain silent, and so on. We could do these things without disregarding the constitution. For instance, we could hold a constitutional convention and ban private ownership of cruise missiles, grenades, rocket launchers, SAMs, nuclear weapons, most 9mm handgun magazines used by police ("High capacity magazines"), and rifles that look scary but kill almost nobody. We could also repeal the 5th amendment. Instead of doing these things, we make them policy in contradiction of the law.

hackuser 12y ago
> For instance, we could hold a constitutional convention ... Instead of doing these things, we make them policy in contradiction of the law. I agree with the principle ... but: Imagine if updates to your software project required consensus of over 300 million people, sometimes about very heated questions. I think you would only do updates in extremis and otherwise use other mechanisms to resolve issues. Practically, how do we address this problem?

fleitz 12y ago

Yes, for example the founding fathers might not have thought of growing plants for personal consumption as interstate commerce, or building a private office towers as a public purpose, thankfully we have the SCOTUS to realize that growing plants for your own use is interstate commerce and that private office towers are public purposes. Whatever you're doing is probably illegal if the government wants it to be illegal, and legal if the government wants it to be legal. As most lawyers say, don't talk to the police, so I assume the best advice would be to encrypt your documents to the maximum extent possible, and have your lawyer sort it out in court.