The Annoyed Man wrote:I disagree to some extent. Sure, it would make things easier in a superficial way, but it could make things a lot harder in more deeply important ways. Here's why:Morgan wrote:It's the fault of the state. If they would remove text instead of adding exceptions, the confusion would go away.
What they are doing is "amending" existing law, not writing new law. When we amend the Constitution, we don't remove the older amendment that was cancelled out by the new amendment. See the 18th (Prohibition) and 21st (cancelling Prohibition) amendments for an example.
There is a very good reason for doing things this way, and that is so that we can have a record of how we got to where we are. Imagine that the 2nd got overturned by amendment. Wouldn't you want the record there for all to see that Americans had once enjoyed that right, so that future generations could undo the folly of the one that banned firearms?
That's why updates to the law are penned in the way they are. Even when passages are struck from the law, they remain in the text, but crossed out with a line through it, indicating what the law used to say.
That gives us a legal roadmap.
TAM,
you just made me feel incredibly smart....
my husband and I had this same conversation Saturday and I said exactly what you did! now I know I got it right!
