Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> 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.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: