> "a reasonable reading of the law". Anyone relying on this when thinking about new laws deserves to have their constitutional rights slowly eroded year by year.
Let me add another historical example of reasonable reading of law going awry - in renaissance and later Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth there was noble democracy - all nobles had equal voting rights (that was +- 10% of country population). They elected kings, decided country matters during parlament sessions, etc.
There was instituion of "liberum veto" - it was thought to be consequence of all nobles being equal in voting rights - it meant that every nobleman could stop any decision made by parliament, just by saing "liberum veto".
For many centuries it was not as stupid, as it sounds, because it was common understanding, that this person could be then challanged to duel by anybody not agreeing with him (so people weren't overusing it), and that this veto only applies to one matter currently discussed, not everything that was decided during given session.
But starting in 1652 understanding of this law changed to "liberum veto means any nobleman can cancel all decisions made during parlament session". And people started escaping after screaming "liberum veto".
Of course it was abused by foreign countries - you just have to bribe one nobleman out of 10% of country population to block any decision (like decision to enlarge army). Slightly more than century later Commonwealth disappeared.
Let me add another historical example of reasonable reading of law going awry - in renaissance and later Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth there was noble democracy - all nobles had equal voting rights (that was +- 10% of country population). They elected kings, decided country matters during parlament sessions, etc.
There was instituion of "liberum veto" - it was thought to be consequence of all nobles being equal in voting rights - it meant that every nobleman could stop any decision made by parliament, just by saing "liberum veto".
For many centuries it was not as stupid, as it sounds, because it was common understanding, that this person could be then challanged to duel by anybody not agreeing with him (so people weren't overusing it), and that this veto only applies to one matter currently discussed, not everything that was decided during given session.
But starting in 1652 understanding of this law changed to "liberum veto means any nobleman can cancel all decisions made during parlament session". And people started escaping after screaming "liberum veto".
Of course it was abused by foreign countries - you just have to bribe one nobleman out of 10% of country population to block any decision (like decision to enlarge army). Slightly more than century later Commonwealth disappeared.