Well?

For the most part, I think laws should be broad, big picture affairs that lend themselves to a couple of paragraphs.

I guess y'all disagree.

Yes and no.

Too complex and too many. Don't "clean them up", but repeal them.

A reasonable number of laws, each a couple paragraphs of plain English, and fully informed juries. I'd rather trust my fate to a jury with all the relevant facts and a sense of fairness than lawyers and judges with piles of rules couched in legalese for every occasion.

A reasonably healthy adult ought to be able to lift all the pertinent federal laws without getting a hernia.

Repeal half, and and cut the rest in half. Drop all Latin and legal speak so real people can understand every word.

What would lawyers do?

Not much. Like they do now, but without the pay.

It appears to me that lawyers write these voluminous legally descriptive laws to try and close as many loop holes as possible that other lawyers will be looking for as a way around the same laws. We’ve all seen, at one time or another, how lawyers and judges will nit pick particular verbiage in laws to support their positions. Even the Supreme Court has ruled against some state or federal legislative laws because of omissions or less that inclusive language, at times due to brevity.

I just call it “Designed Job Security for Lawyers”.

Eggsactly. That's why I hate legalese. It isn't to add to justice, but to keep justice out of the hands of ordinary citizens. Voir dire, posse comitatus? Who needs anything but English in court? (cept Mexicans of course)

Thomas Hobbes nailed it some 3 centuries ago . . .

OTOH, the other option is what?





That would be nice. OTOH, specialized vocabulary has been the way ANY specialist has established his/her 'domain' since time immemorial.

If it's immediately available and understandable and doable by all, what's the point of going into it?

"Are new laws too complex, 900 pages to make law, is that an indicator of something awry"


Quoting Dr Venkman - "Is that a trick question?

Seriously, can the answer be anything other than a resounding "Yea"?

I thought right-wingers needed a lot of complex laws for security. How else can they keep gays from marrying, women from having abortions, people from smoking marijuana and a variety of other horrible evils.

You thought.

Somebody has to, and the right-wingers don't seem to be disposed to it.

"Uh oh, Tonto. Looks like we are completely surrounded by the redskins."




"Who's 'we', white eyes?"

Said Chesty Puller, "They've got us surrounded - they can't get away now!"