|
Legally, these are all legitimate points. It is necessary for the affirmative (plaintiff) side of the case to define terms for the sake of prosecution. For someone to be speeding, it is necessary to adequately define who was speeding and by how much with enough evidence to convict. When a police officer gives a ticket, it is the equivalent of getting a court conviction without the trial. Most people never test the system, but the truth is that literal interpretation of the law is perhaps the best way to get around it.
The law is written, not by noble lawyers or intelligent policy analysts but instead by self-interested lobbyists and average citizens. The people we send to represent us in various capitals around the world are average people with makeup for their interviews and scripted answers to questions they received in the mail weeks before they spoke in person on live television. We could all do their jobs at the same level of skill. This low understanding of legal and political vocabulary is exactly what produces these obvious loopholes. In truth, the law depends on people not challenging it, and it is often the case that the law goes unchallenged.
In any state with a constitution, the law is valid until challenged, even if the law violates the constitution. This is worth noting because challenging an unconstitutional law is perhaps the most patriotic thing a person can do. It keeps a nation on a path of serving citizens rather than serving itself. Democracies need people to be difficult—not in the revolutionary sort of way, but rather in a sarcastic way that lets the state know that it is the subordinate in any situation—in order to prosper.
We all own a stake in the government. Do with it what you please. If you please to be your state's subordinate, then your state will take advantage of you. If you please to take ownership of your state, then take its time and resources, and make it obey.
|