Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
But this is of course a strawman.
It is not dependent on what politicians say. It is dependent on what was written down when the law was created. And that includes things not in the actual law text. But interpretations for new situations are allowed. It is a strength not to be locked to the literal interpretation of some text.
|
It is, of course, a balancing act. Complete inflexibility is bad, but total flexibility is as bad or worse. I think the law in Common Law jurisdictions in this regard is, though not perfect, pretty good. It would not IMHO be good government or good law to disregard the plain meaning of leglslation to give effect to some intention to be found not in the wording of the law but in other places and stated no doubt with even less precision.