If laws are linked to specific dictionaries, bad actors will find it harder to deliberately misinterpret laws using linguistic drift.
As an example, when the 2nd Amendment was written, “well regulated” unambiguously meant “in good working order”. Now can also mean “under government supervision”, which is nearly the opposite.
You’re right to highlight how language shifts over time. For instance, when the 2nd Amendment was written, “well regulated” likely referred to something being in proper working order, like a “well-regulated” clock. It didn’t necessarily mean government oversight. But today, “regulated” tends to mean “government-controlled” or “subject to rules and supervision.” That shift in meaning can create confusion, especially when laws are interpreted in the context of modern-day issues, like gun control.
Now, imagine if we were to tie all laws to a single dictionary’s definition at a certain point in history. In theory, it could limit misinterpretation. But let’s look at another example: the word “privacy.” In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, “privacy” was mostly understood in terms of personal space or protection from physical intrusion. But today, the concept of privacy also includes digital privacy, where personal information online or surveillance technologies come into play. If we locked “privacy” to its older, narrower meaning, it could limit how laws are applied to modern privacy concerns, like data protection or the right to be forgotten online.
Take the example of the U.S. Constitution and how it’s interpreted. Consider the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery. In its time, it was clear that “slavery” referred to the condition of being owned by another person and forced into labor. But today, issues like “human trafficking” and “prison labor” raise complex questions. A strict, historically fixed interpretation might not address these modern forms of coercion.
Another example is the term “speech.” When the First Amendment was drafted, “speech” likely referred to oral communication, but today it encompasses everything from written words to digital media and social platforms. If we didn’t allow some flexibility in interpreting what “speech” means in modern contexts, we could run into issues with new forms of expression that weren’t conceivable back then.
So, while anchoring laws to a fixed definition from a particular point in time could certainly help in some instances (like reducing misinterpretations due to linguistic drift), there are cases where it would limit the law’s ability to adapt to changing societal needs. The role of the courts, then, is to bridge the gap between historical intent and contemporary issues, ensuring laws remain relevant without losing their original purpose.
A lot of good points made here.
The legal jargon is a lot for the laymen, making simply worded umbrella statements easy to underestimate.
I would propose that the meanings of the vague wording be explicitly defined in a glossary at the end of each bill/ law created. This way, no matter the change in meaning over time, the intension of the law remains true?
Many laws already have a definitions section, usually near the beginning.
The problem is that you can’t predict which words will drift, so this is an imperfect solution.
I think a reasonable compromise would be to publish a government-approved dictionary every decade or so and link all laws passed in that decade to it.
Nice solution. It might be good to integrate that as a way to address EthanHowardMfrr’s post The Government’s Legal Right to Lie in Legislation: USC Title 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS Ch. 1: RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
Expanding upon this idea of a dictionary, I’ve flexed Grok to assist with a more comprehensive resource to not only include a dictionary, but to make all policy and law more easily accessible, so we could actually make a difference in addressing outdated laws, language drift, and modern relevancy. I’ve improved upon your idea and paired it with queries to produce useful feedback in implementing something like this to go beyond a legal definition dictionary and parse data along with that to go with everything else as a strategic resource…
Creating an AI-powered wiki that aggregates and cross-references data from various governmental and legal sources like GovTrack.us, Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LLI), Congress.gov, the Federal Register, and GovInfo is indeed a feasible concept, albeit with several technical, legal, and operational considerations:
Technical Implementation:
Congress.gov & GovTrack.us: Both provide APIs for accessing legislative data. For Congress.gov, there’s an official API, and GovTrack.us also offers access to their datasets.
Cornell LII: While there isn’t a direct API, LII’s content is often accessible for educational and non-commercial use, but scraping would need to respect their terms of use.
Federal Register: Provides an API for accessing data.
GovInfo: Offers a bulk data repository and APIs for accessing their content.
Use natural language processing (NLP) to parse, understand, and categorize the content from these sources. This includes:
Entity Recognition: Identifying legislators, bills, topics, etc.
Relationship Extraction: Understanding how different pieces of legislation relate to each other or to current laws.
Summarization: Condensing long documents into key points for easier wiki entry creation.
Machine Learning for Cross-Referencing: Develop algorithms that can infer connections between different legislative items, legal opinions, and regulatory actions. This could involve:
Semantic Analysis for understanding the context and intent behind laws or bills.
Graph Databases to map out relationships between different entities (bills, amendments, related articles, etc.).
Predictive Models to forecast likely legislative outcomes or areas ripe for policy improvement.
Choose or develop a wiki platform that can handle dynamic content updates from AI feeds. MediaWiki (used by Wikipedia) or a more customized solution could work, enabling:
Automatic Updates: As new data is published, the wiki updates or suggests updates.
User Interaction: Allowing users to refine, comment, or expand on the AI-generated entries.
Legal and Ethical Considerations:
Copyright and Data Usage Rights: Ensure compliance with the terms of service for each source. Government data in the U.S. is generally in the public domain, but how it’s used or presented can still have legal implications.
Data Privacy: Even though much of this data is public, handling it with care, especially any personally identifiable information, is crucial.
Operational Challenges:
Data Integrity: Ensuring the data remains accurate over time as laws change or are repealed.
User Engagement: Encouraging strategic-minded individuals to use and contribute to the wiki, possibly through community building or integration with academic or policy institutes.
Practical Steps:
Feasibility Study: Assess the technical requirements, legal permissions, and potential user base.
Prototype Development: Start with a smaller scope, perhaps focusing on a single area of legislation, to test the concept and refine the AI processes.
Collaboration: Work with legal experts, data scientists, and perhaps even the sources themselves. The Library of Congress, for example, might be interested in collaborative projects that increase public engagement with legislative data.
Funding and Support: Secure funding possibly through grants, partnerships, or as an open-source community project.
Launch and Iteration: Launch a beta version, collect feedback, and iterate. The AI component would need continuous training to handle new types of data or changes in legislation structure.
Such a system would not only serve as a powerful tool for policy analysis but could also democratize access to legislative information, enabling more informed policy discussions and potentially better governance.
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs - obamawhitehouse.archives.gov
OK Policy Information - okpolicy.org
Political Analysis for Public Policy - guides.library.duke.edu
The politics of legislative evaluations - www.sciencedirect.com
State Legislation Savvy: A Primer and Tools - www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Reference Sources - guides.library.ucla.edu
Public Policy - guides.library.yale.edu
Legislative Analyst’s Office - lao.ca.gov
Policy content analysis - www.sciencedirect.com
Getting Started - Policy Research Guide - guides.ll.georgetown.edu
Bills by Subject and Policy Area - www.congress.gov
Legislative Analysis and Public Policy Association - www.linkedin.com
Websites - American Government: Policy Research - bullis.libguides.com
Policy Research - guides.library.pdx.edu
Featured Resources | PolicyLink - www.policylink.org
A guide to policy analysis as a research method - pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Legislative history - en.wikipedia.org
Policy and Legislative Analysis - harveyrose.com
Research and Analysis - legis.wisconsin.gov
Resources - www.ncsl.org
Policy analysis - en.wikipedia.org
Legislation Analysis - libguides.wvu.edu
Home | LAPPA - legislativeanalysis.org
Policy content analysis - pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Legislative Analysis And Public Policy Association - [projects.propublica.org](projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organization
@Jack0 I’d love a collaborative proposal for our two policies, with the very much needed additions from Grok, provided by @Nicole_C_Scott
Government transparency of legislative construction is of utmost importance.
Along with a database, I believe that the US should begin to publish each set of the activities pased by each Congress. Much like the US Statutes at Large.
If people like any of my ideas, they’re welcome to borrow them.