In response to:

There Ought Not to Be a Law

Don't Tread On Me3 Wrote: Aug 15, 2012 5:58 AM
And, if there OUGHT to be a law... well, it should be a LAW, in which our elected representatives stated unambiguously what they are forbidding or requiring us to do. It ought to be possible for anyone reading the statute to determine what they may not or must do. An awful lot of "law" passed these days is not really law but huge chunks of authority to legislate, & discretion & value judgements that are supposed to be reserved to the elected Constitutional officers, handed to unelected bureaucrats & judges. These vast delegations of poorly defined discretion fester in the dark, & spawn ramifications that few anticipated & fewer who must stand for election would have supported on the record.
Happy Jake Wrote: Aug 15, 2012 6:09 AM
This is what happens when lawyers write the law. Laws are written not to guide us on a path, but to enrich other lawyers.
Don't Tread On Me3 Wrote: Aug 15, 2012 8:38 AM
Good point.

Ever notice how when someone in any other line of business, profession, or trade participates in writing law, it's presumed there's a conflict of interest, but lawyers are EXPECTED to write laws they'll make a living off of.
Don't Tread On Me3 Wrote: Aug 15, 2012 6:04 AM
We still don't really know what Obamacare or Dodd-Frank "say" because they have no practical meaning until the armies of lawyers & bureaucrats finish writing the rules they mandate, & court actions must build up a body of case law that will have more practical impact than the words of the statutes.

Do we need a constitutional amendment that provides that no person shall be sanctioned or taxed in any way, unless the words of a statute unambiguously state that person committed a crime, a civil breach, or was liable for a tax assessment?

I’m a libertarian in part because I see a false choice offered by the political left and right: government control of the economy -- or government control of our personal lives.

People on both sides think of themselves as freedom lovers. The left thinks government can lessen income inequality. The right thinks government can make Americans more virtuous. I say we’re best off if neither side attempts to advance its agenda via government.

Let both argue about things like drug use and poverty, but let no one be coerced by government unless he steals or attacks someone....