[FoRK] divegeek/uscode · GitHub

Stephen D. Williams sdw at lig.net
Tue May 29 13:17:20 PDT 2012


I have tried to follow legislative trails and determine the net law.  It's not too much fun, and different for different levels.  
Popular things are well known and scrutinized, edge cases are mostly unknown by people you're likely to run into.

sdw

On 5/29/12 11:45 AM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
> The problem isn't printing, it's that politics is messy and ugly.
>
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Gary Stock<gstock at nexcerpt.com>  wrote:
>> Yes about disruptive clowns!  And no, they can't be stopped.  But we needn't
>> give them better, more versatile ammunition.
>>
>> My point was that an out-of-date law can become a similarly stupid weapon.
>>   If any version (or any draft, or any markup...), from any point in time, no
>> matter how brief, is made available just as printable (and legible, thus
>> perhaps credible) as the law now in force, we will be swamped by even more
>> clowns, each with a bigger posse.
>>
>> Some amazing things -- from the worst to the best -- have been proposed as
>> statute or amendment, but held that status only briefly.  It's one thing to
>> spread a rumor that XYZ may be legal.  It's quite another to hand out
>> officially formatted legislative documents (which may have only had merit
>> for one day, and been rejected soundly the next).
>>
>> Smart people can manufacture misleading crap to back ~any~ agenda.  I'd
>> prefer not to provide stupid people more official-looking do-it-yourself
>> assistance...
>>
>> GS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/28/12 5:00 PM, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote:
>>> I sympathize with the anecdote and understand that sort of thing is not
>>> rare.  But exactly how will your suggestions for watermarking, etc., prevent
>>> or even minimize that sort of lunacy?  E.g. showing him the hard evidence of
>>> subsequent decisions didn't even slow him down.
>>>
>>> Your suggestion is worthwhile for understanding what is current, for those
>>> who wish to.  But it won't deter the clowns like in your anecdote.  For them
>>> it's not about the law; it's about the disruption.
>>>
>>>          ...ken...
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Mon, 5/28/12, Gary Stock<gstock at nexcerpt.com>    wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Gary Stock<gstock at nexcerpt.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [FoRK] divegeek/uscode · GitHub
>>>> To: "Friends of Rohit Khare"<fork at xent.com>
>>>> Received: Monday, May 28, 2012, 10:59 AM
>>>>
>>>> The first and most important goal for /uscode:  ALWAYS
>>>> force a large
>>>> "NOT CURRENT" watermark (as unavoidable and undefeatable as
>>>> possible)
>>>> beneath  -- and multiple datestamps on (all four
>>>> corners of) -- any
>>>> display object that is not ~purely~ current statute, now in
>>>> force.
>>>>
>>>> I have been watching a local township disintegrate
>>>> politically over the
>>>> past several months, because one idiot with a grudge found a
>>>> 30-year old
>>>> Attorney General opinion that once (long ago) could have
>>>> been
>>>> interpreted to mean elected officials were in violation of
>>>> State law.
>>>>
>>>> I personally pointed him to later AG opinions ~reversing~
>>>> that finding,
>>>> as well as legislative action explicitly making such
>>>> activities legal.
>>>>
>>>> Still, he clings to the notion that -- since he can print
>>>> out a 30-year
>>>> old ruling that the activity "is impermissible" -- he has
>>>> the law on his
>>>> side.  And, every few days, he convinces one more idiot
>>>> that it's
>>>> somehow still true...
>>>>
>>>> GS
>>>>
>>>> On 5/27/12 7:49 PM, Damien Morton wrote:
>>>>> Often laws are constructed as deltas to earlier laws.
>>>> e.g. section xxxx
>>>>> supercedes section yyyy, or section xxxx alters section
>>>> yyyyy by removing
>>>>



More information about the FoRK mailing list