Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
there are the contexts that empirically obtain, like those in this actual case, and those which you mistakenly impute to it.
they're different.
and it's easy to check.
|
any time you attempt to add a vagueness or expressive expansion to an otherwise 'strictly constructed' legal document, things like this will invariably happen. You want people to be able to decipher a difference in empirically obtained contexts vs. mistakenly imputed contexts and it's never going to happen, Especially when giving 550+ government officials an opportunity to stretch an interpretation to a document you claim needs the ability to 'grow with the times'. By doing so, you're indirectly responsible for the results.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
|