what kind of law would you write?

[shellbackdiver1]

Drinking age to 18 or voting age to 21. Or better yet military age to 21. 20 years ago I was in the NAVY at the age of 19 working on the electronics of an F14 fighter, but I could not drink a beer.

 

[Peter Guy]

Green wrote:

That's because the laws are written by lawyers. The intent is to obfuscate so some pinhead can "interpret" the law, then another pinhead can "get his/her client off" because they technically did not break the law. Then they'll craft another law to close the loophole. The cycle then repeats.

NOT to get too far off topic, but I just have to respond to this one. This can only have been written by someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the subject because this response is so wrong on so many levels -- but the most important one is the reasons why so many laws are unclear. Those reasons come down to two:

a. Nobody is smart enough to be able to write a general law which will cover all possible situations; and

b. Getting two people to agree on what "the definition of is is" is hard enough -- and getting 50 or 200 people to agree on what a word means is impossible. Since laws are a compromise among the people who pass them, ambiguity is inevitable -- and where there is ambiguity there will be disagreement on what is meant.

I am very proud to have had the opportunity to help the citizens of my state by writing the language of the statutes that govern some of their conduct. The fact that there is ambiguity in the meaning has nothing to do with the fact that I'm an attorney and the author of the words.

BTW, there were any number of times when the legislators decided to make a statute more ambiguous than necessary so that every legislator could then say "This means 'X'" to different constituents! Making sausage can be pretty ugly some times.

Attorneys don't need to write laws in an ambiguous manner in order to get paying clients. Just passing a new law is sufficient!

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Green wrote:

NOT to get too far off topic, but I just have to respond to this one. This can only have been written by someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the subject because this response is so wrong on so many levels -- but the most important one is the reasons why so many laws are unclear. Those reasons come down to two:

a. Nobody is smart enough to be able to write a general law which will cover all possible situations; and

b. Getting two people to agree on what "the definition of is is" is hard enough -- and getting 50 or 200 people to agree on what a word means is impossible. Since laws are a compromise among the people who pass them, ambiguity is inevitable -- and where there is ambiguity there will be disagreement on what is meant.

I am very proud to have had the opportunity to help the citizens of my state by writing the language of the statutes that govern some of their conduct. The fact that there is ambiguity in the meaning has nothing to do with the fact that I'm an attorney and the author of the words.

BTW, there were any number of times when the legislators decided to make a statute more ambiguous than necessary so that every legislator could then say "This means 'X'" to different constituents! Making sausage can be pretty ugly some times.

Attorneys don't need to write laws in an ambiguous manner in order to get paying clients. Just passing a new law is sufficient!

My response was "wrong on so many levels"? Not. I would like to clarify that I am not insinuating that all lawyers are pinheads; only that there are pinhead lawyers.

Perhaps common sense should be a significant portion of law making? That might reduce the ambiguity.

The persons debating the definition of "is" was a group of lawyers. They also apparently needed common sense when defining what sex "is". The "reasonable and prudent man" knows what "is" is, and knows what sex is.

 

[thomjinx]

How about a law requiring huge SUVs to have turn signals?

I am trying to decide if SUVs actually cause brain damage or if they are just a symptom.

 

[HowardE]

Perhaps common sense should be a significant portion of law making? That might reduce the ambiguity.

There is no such thing as common sense, if there was, then it would be shared by ALL... since there is the existence of complete idiots with "no common sense" therefore there is no such thing

 

[riffdiver]

1) no read english? no vote.
2) no speak english? no vote.
3) undocumented/temporary guest worker? no vote.
4) a guest of this country? No complain, otherwise go home

Yei!!!

 

[HowardE]

How about a law requiring huge SUVs to have turn signals?

I don't think there's any cars since the 1960's without turn signals.

Now a law requiring people to use them... there already is one.

 

[The Kraken]

I'd like a "Cause You're a Dumb-A-$-$" law.

It would prevent anyone from bringing suit against another party because the plaintiff did something stupid, like spilling hot coffee in one's lap, or sticking one's fingers in a lawnmower while it's running, etc.

Ya can't sue the guy who had the mean dog that bit you because you climbed a 8' foot high, razor wire topped fence and trespassed into the guy's yard . . . etc.

the K

 

[riffdiver]

Mexicans get a bad rap.

I love that culture...till we mess them up.

when I see them struggling to make change and speak English in McDonalds...I wonder how many Americans would do that.

Catherine, you'll be surprised. I think you you confusing a will with abilities. Most do not even have a will. That is why you have bilingual classes in US schools. And in a chase for a vote politicians will make/change any law.

 

[melissassm]

1) no read english? no vote.
2) no speak english? no vote.

Wow, that's harsh.
If they are legal citizens, then the right to vote is entrenched in the wonderful free and democratic society in which we live.

If it were up to me, I would be rid of the death penalty in every state, like it is here in Canada.