Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The point wasn't to come up with a substitute that won't happen. It was to see whether one can smoke out the true intent.
One of three things is going on:
1) The proponents have evil, nefarious intent beyond what they say
2) The proponents are ham-handed drafters
3) The proponents struggled mightily to come up with language to achieve their stated aims, and believe this is the best way possible.
We can't independently prove 1 one way or the other, but we can decide whether 2 or 3 is what's happening, and use it to shed light on whether 1 is the actual explanation.
So, propose an alternative that proves 2 is what's happening, rather than 3.
|
You propose an alternative that proves that 3 is what's happening, rather than 2.
There's another choice -- I kind of doubt that the actual elected official sponsoring the legislation wrote it. So, it may be that the sponsor himself has no evil nefarious intent, but the writer does.
