I agree--given your contraints of law and 10 years. But what about a law that hasn't been updated for 150 years? There's plenty of those that we regularly ignore.
> Even the silly confusing ones have a long life. E.g. "Rule against perpetuities"
That wouldn't be my go-to example of a silly law. It's what prevents control of property from remaining permanently with the will of a dead person who managed to own the property outright. It says that, at some point, the will can have no more influence and full ownership vests in someone who's alive.
Much of the US/UK legal system is based on common-law rules that are several hundred years old. In some cases those old laws have been codified, in some cases not, but either way there's no need to drop them just because they're old. On the contrary, laws that have stood that long without needing to be changed have demonstrated that they are extraordinarily good ideas.
I’m not sure point to the UK is a good example. There are plenty of weird and obscure laws that simply aren’t enforced or followed anymore. Everything from laws about handling salmon suspiciously, through to various right around who can drive sheep across Tower Bridge.
Those laws survive not because anyone considers them a good idea, but simply because the issues caused by ignoring them are substantially smaller than the effort involved in removing them.
We also have a bunch of laws that are still followed, but only in the most technical sense. Every “Parliament route” train schedule falls into that category. Train services that must be provided at least once a day, sometimes only once a week, which nobody actually uses, and in some cases only travel to stations with no practical public entrances. Those laws don’t survive because anyone things they’re a good idea, it’s just easier to run the train, than it is to get parliament time to abolish the law.
There is no automatic, fixed timeframe after which a law simply stops being followed because it hasn't been updated or looked at; and remember, we're still applying the FHS, it's in active use even if it's not updated.
Laws remain in force until they are formally:
* Repealed (abolished) by the relevant legislative body (Parliament, Congress, etc.).
* Struck down by a court as unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.
A 150 year "delete" timer would genuinely undermine the foundation of the legal system. Lawyers, judges, and businesses rely on the continuity of core laws (e.g., contract, property, and tax law). If a 150-year-old property law suddenly lapsed, it could instantly void millions of land titles and commercial contracts...
> Laws remain in force until they are formally: * Struck down by a court as unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.
False. They are still in force - they have just become unenforceable. There's a crucial difference, as the US is currently finding out: as long as they are in the books, a Supreme Court decision can instantly render them enforceable again - even against the wishes of the population.
The proper thing to do would be to "garbage collect" unenforceable laws, but politicians are (understandably) hesitant to spend political capital on it when it doesn't provide any tangible return.
There are other reasons as well. The body responsible for enforcing a particular law can choose not to enforce it, thereby rendering the law useless. Or a law can become obsolete by changes in technology or society - the original law legislates something that just doesn't happen any more, say. Laws can also be written to handle a specific event that only occurs once. Once that event has passed, the law might as well not exist. It doesn't need to be repealed because it just doesn't apply any more.
In addition, laws are typically regularly amended to handle new societal developments, to clarify wording, or to fit better with other laws or changes in attitudes. A law that has gone 150 years without being amended at all is probably a law that falls into the categories above and is obsolete.
Of course, all this is getting somewhat off-topic, but the point is that laws absolutely can become outdated and unmaintained, either deliberately or by happenstance. And the inverse is also true: most laws that people deal with regularly are kept up-to-date to ensure that they still reflect the needs and wills of the society they're being used in.
Obviously the intent was "Thou shall not murder anyone"... Interpreting it otherwise doesn't make sense, and is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.
That's the wrong way to look at it. The Bible does not refer to other laws as a source of authority. Saying murder is "just" illegal killing is the real meaningless statement. Clearly people in the Bible are allowed to fight and defend themselves. Murder is typically intentional and unnecessary killing of someone else for malicious reasons (or no reason at all). Malicious reasons would typically be spite, greed, or convenience.
> The Bible does not refer to other laws as a source of authority
The Bible is the source of law here. My point was that interpreting it solely in the way you deem "obvious" does not work: you cannot have "thou shalt not murder" on its own without additional rules clarifying what counts as "murder" and what counts as "lawful killing" - and the Bible contains plenty of those.
> Murder is typically intentional and unnecessary killing of someone else for malicious reasons (or no reason at all). Malicious reasons would typically be spite, greed, or convenience.
That's how you interpret it. Modern law allows for killing out of greed - if the soldier firing the bullet is different from the politician wanting to capture some resources. We allow countries to kill out of spite with retaliatory strikes. We allow cops to kill in self-defense - even when other methods to subdue are theoretically available, but inconvenient. On the other hand, we no longer allow stoning to death people violating the Sabbath.
Clearly, there is a nontrivial list of criteria separating murder from lawful killing, and this list is mutable. In practice this list is codified in the law, which means murder becomes "killing which is not otherwise allowed in the law", which is the point I was trying to make.
Looping back to the original discussion: contrary to what ikiris was originally claiming it is not "thou shalt not kill" but "thou shalt not murder", and we've been updating the definition of "murder" (and by extent the meaning of "thou shalt not murder") quite a lot over the last few thousand years, so it is false to claim that " 'thou shalt not kill' never needs an update ".
>The Bible is the source of law here. My point was that interpreting it solely in the way you deem "obvious" does not work: you cannot have "thou shalt not murder" on its own without additional rules clarifying what counts as "murder" and what counts as "lawful killing" - and the Bible contains plenty of those.
It is obvious to people who know the Bible lol. It may have lots of contradictions but this isn't one of them. Murder was understood in a particular way to these ancient people, that still applies to us today.
>That's how you interpret it. Modern law allows for killing out of greed - if the soldier firing the bullet is different from the politician wanting to capture some resources.
As I said, I am not referring to laws of any country. The laws of modern countries are irrelevant to interpretation of the Bible. The dictionary does not count either.
>Looping back to the original discussion: contrary to what ikiris was originally claiming it is not "thou shalt not kill" but "thou shalt not murder", and we've been updating the definition of "murder" (and by extent the meaning of "thou shalt not murder") quite a lot over the last few thousand years, so it is false to claim that " 'thou shalt not kill' never needs an update ".
The only thing that needs an update is the translation. The meaning is very clear and universal. Don't kill people except in self-defense. It is just as antisocial today as it was thousands of years ago.
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
"and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy."
Lol yes... I've heard some alternative explanations of this. The Ten Commandments are not recognized outside of Christianity. They are just some important general sounding rules in a book that is full of rules for Jews, who get into battles with other people at times. Many of those rules in the same book have prescribed punishments of stoning to death, as well. So clearly, killing is at least allowed for purposes of punishment and warfare. Common sense also tells us that no religion can realistically prohibit self-defense.
"Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”"
Later on it says that he was not happy with the outcome because they didn't kill all the livestock and people... Of course this is a work of mythology, but the message clearly isn't that the Israelites should go and loot from these people.
The US constitution is still in force after 236 years, and even older laws are still enforced. US courts will sometimes look at precedent from England before the colonies existed.
Meanwhile some laws that are months old are ignored by law enforcement because nothing forces them to read it. It’s that effect which is why so many old laws are ignored rather than formally repealed. When nobody is ridding a horse nobody cares how you need to tie one up when visiting a store etc.
> The US constitution is still in force after 236 years
True, but it's been updated a lot more recently than that.
The last update was still much longer ago than 10 years, of course. The most recently ratified amendment to the Constitution - the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, ratified 1992 - was, incredibly enough, proposed in 1789 along with the ten we know as the Bill of Rights and another one which was never ratified. And of the twenty-seven amendments ratified so far, the one most recently proposed by Congress, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, was both proposed and ratified in 1971.
Are you suggesting that appending the constitution in 1992 with: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Somehow has an impact on anything else? Because by that standard every change to any law updates all existing laws that were not changed. Or I’m just completely misunderstanding your point here.
My point is that merely referencing the centuries-old original age of a document is misleading when it’s been updated dozens of times ending just a few decades ago. (And many of the updates, including the one in 1971, have been far more impactful than the Twenty-Seventh Amendment which you quoted.)
It’s certainly true that the constitution is old and crusty overall and desperately needs an overhaul, but the discussion was about when old laws which haven’t been updated in a while are ignored or enforced.
The constitution is indeed one law, not several different laws, and it’s been updated far more recently than its original year of promulgation or ratification. And it’s still mostly enforced (with increasing exceptions but that’s another discussion entirely).
18 times. 27 total amendments with 1-10 all passing on December 15, 1791.
> a few decades ago
There hasn’t been a meaningful change in over 54 years.
> The constitution is indeed one law, not several different laws
Those recent amendments are a minimum different laws. If you want to call it one law then there’s either 2 federal laws in the US. One needs to be ratified by the states and the others don’t.
> No 18 times. 27 total amendments with 1-10 all passing on December 15, 1791.
Fair correction.
> Those recent amendments are a minimum different laws.
Only in the sense that any new enactment is a new law, but in that sense no law can be updated in a way that preserves its identity as the same law. Which is not useful for the discussion of whether an old law has or hasn’t been updated, since by that definition updates to any law are impossible.
Lawyers and judges don’t exclusively use that sense any more than programmers view a software patch as changing the basic identity (beyond something like a version number) of the patched software program.
They do use that sense when they are referring to individual enactments by Congress, just like programmers refer to patches and patch releases as well as to the things which exist across many patch( release)s over time. Which sense is useful depends on context, and which sense is meant depends on a mixture of context and exact phrasing.
> If you want to call it one law then there’s either 2 federal laws in the US.
There are far more than 2 federal laws in the US, but far fewer than one per enactment except when using the sense of “a federal law” that specifically refers to each enactment.
For example, most federal tax legislation explicitly amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which is still the official name of our federal tax code. Similarly, most immigration legislation amends the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1954 (I could have the year wrong), even more than 70 years later. The many “patch” laws enacted in the meantime all have their own identities via Public Law numbers and often a name, but they do update a specific identifiable underlying law without replacing it.
Other federal laws, like most annual appropriation and authorization bills, stand alone and are not routinely updated but have a finite duration of relevance. Common provisions are often carried forward from one iteration to the next, but they are re-enacted as part of each separate iteration.
And then there are the many parts of the federal legal landscape where the US Code is the official authoritative version instead of a mere convenience version as it is for things like the tax code and immigration law. Amendments to the directly authoritative parts of the US Code explicitly amend the US Code instead of a separately named law, so those directly authoritative parts of the US Code are themselves (whether each or collectively) a single federal law in the sense I’m discussing.
Yes, this stuff is complicated and messy in both the law and the software worlds.
> One needs to be ratified by the states and the others don’t.
Yes, constitutional amendments are laws (in one sense) that amend a law (in the other sense) and which states need to ratify, and regular Acts of Congress are laws (in the first sense) that may or may not amend one or more pre-existing laws (in the second sense) and which states do not need to ratify.
> Yes, constitutional amendments are laws (in one sense) that amend a law (in the other sense) and which states need to ratify, and regular Acts of Congress are laws (in the first sense) that may or may not amend one or more pre-existing laws (in the second sense) and which states do not need to ratify.
Yea, obviously we agree with what’s going on this is just a question of arbitrary definitions that don’t impact anything.
> Which is not useful for the discussion of whether an old law has or hasn’t been updated, since by that definition updates to any law are impossible.
It’s definitely easier work with the law based on the provided organizational structures with tax code being separate from family law etc. Yay, congress is doing something reasonably efficiently.
However, timing matters as making something illegal ex post facto is explicitly banned by the constitution etc. Further, in case of conflict newer laws win even without explicitly declaring the old laws invalid. So each bill is a meaningfully different law, and there’s in effect one law at any given moment after resolving those conflicts.
Net result three mutually contradictory but still useful definitions. But IMO organizational structure is by far the least meaningful one from a legal standpoint while being the most useful one from a practical standpoint.
You mean like those local laws that say you can’t walk a cow backwards through the main streets? Or laws that say a motor vehicle must be preceded by a lamp carrier.
