- Oct 23, 2013
- 22,062
- 12,230
- 1,435
Ironically, "pinning down" is exactly what I try to do with this definition. Nobody wants to play that way. Except as you did here, but most posters here aren't in smelling distance of your rhetorical integrity. You carry a distinct fearlessness, and I greatly respect that. Around here it's like an oasis.
Well, I am pretty sure it was my Strict Constructionist leanings that encouraged me to answer your request.
I understand your desire to "pin things down" ... Especially in the context of law.
My greatest difficulty with legislation does not exist in the text of the legislation ... But exists in the constant attempt of others to define the text in regards to their desires.
To me ... The law says what it says ... And we add ambiguity to it when we want to make it say something different, or what it doesn't say at all.
We argue over interpretations to an extent that the law becomes useless in providing anything it was initially intended to provide.
I certainly don't think that laws should not be amended to include improvements ... But if necessary, just change the law through the required process.
Instead ... The habits of legislators tend to lean towards writing new legislation that further carves out additional needs for clarification ... And offers nothing more that additional ambiguity.
I believe that simple is simple ... And then people mess up legislation in attempts to carve out loopholes that better suit their individual desires..
.