5 ms·
The rationale might be explained in the commit message, but it seems courts never refer to it, preferring instead to reverse engineer the meaning from the compi
by beagle3 12y ago
The rationale might be explained in the commit message, but it seems courts never refer to it, preferring instead to reverse engineer the meaning from the compiled code(law).
The rationale for the PATRIOT act was to fight terrorism. The rationale for copyright extension was ... well, there was some gooblydock. But the courts never seem to reference that when they actually apply these laws.
- hawkice 12y agoThe metaphor works better when you imagine the courts as part of the runtime (or similar). The comments are available for us to use, as citizens, but when the system is executing, it only cares what's in the code.
- beagle3 12y ago> The comments are available for us to use, as citizens, but when the system is executing, it only cares what's in the code. In that case, the comments are entertainment. We are not the users of this system. We are its input/output.
- rhino369 12y agoCourts use legislative history all the time to determine the meaning of the law when it isn't clear. But just because the rationale for the Patriot Act was terrorism, it was never limited to only terrorism.
- beagle3 12y agoCan you point to a place where they have looked at the C-SPAN discussions leading to the law? I was not familiar with the fact that they ever do. They do look at the history of legislation, yes. But the rationale ("commit message") does not appear there.