The government used to be charged with protecting life, liberty, and property. Today people think government should encourage socially responsible behavior, increase the profit margin of multi-national corporations, get people hooked on parmaceuticals, re-distribute wealth, solve drug addiction, encourage the arts, etc., etc., etc. As government has grown and taken on more roles it has become harder to pass clear and understandable laws -- it's easier to write a law that says "don't steal" than it is to write a law that says "if you buy a certain type of washing machine we will give you back some of the taxes you paid if your income and assets fall in the correct range."

Since legislation has been passed, lawyers have been needed to help figure it out. The problem, in my view, is not that bills are badly written, it's that it is almost impossible to write a general rule that deals with every potential situation, and/or every nuance of every situation. Laws/rules that seem clear become less so when applied to a set of facts, and when passing laws, legislators cannot think of every potential situation.

Another thing, IMHO, contributing to any problem here is that there are fewer lawyers in the legislature. If you want to think of every possible situation where a law might be applied, and then want to draft the law to deal with those situations, it's helpful to have lots of lawyers who have had to deal with those kinds of statutes, discussing how to plug holes, etc. Legislative counsel are supposed to serve that role, but I'm not sure they do or can. So while it's great to have business-people, teachers, parents, etc., in the legislature, the professional expertise that comes with the legal profession can be helpful when it comes time to implement legislative policies by passing legislation.

Torrid-

Seriously, correct me if I'm wrong. Are you arguing that government has always tried to control our lives so we should just pay our money and submit to its authority? It's true that using the power of government to control people's lives is not new. However, since the rise of liberal democracy and elected governments (Magna Carter, Declaration of Independence, etc) government has consistently expanded in both size and scope -- I don't see this as a good thing. BTW, Jamestown's laws are not a good example because it was not an established society and significant control was necessary to ensure survival.

Good point about the simple/complex truism -- we probably don't disagree about the original post.

People in prison on drug charges and the victims of U.S. aggression overseas probably think the government is "controlling" their lives.

The Legislative Counsel's office actually does a spectacular job of riding herd on the language in bills and amendments.

The inherent problem is that Homo sapiens is an argumentative species (and Homo sapiens var. oregoniensis is especially so). If you pass a law that says, "Don't steal," every court will be full of defendants saying, "How was I to know that belonged to somebody?" and "Hey, I was just borrowing it; I would have put it back if the cops hadn't interfered with what I was doing." Some courts may accept those arguments, some will say it's obvious the legislators didn't intend for such arguments to stand, and some will send the law back to the legislature with firm instructions to clarify what the legislators did intend.

Suddenly, you need to buy new bookshelves to keep your laws in.

In the case of SB408 and this story from The Oregonian, I think the problem is not so much that the bill is unclear or unenforceable as that the reporter left out some explanation.

After the legislature sets out what it wants enforced (in ORS, the Oregon Revised Statutes), the agencies that will be doing the enforcement set out how they'll do it (in OAR, the Oregon Administrative Rules). We're currently at the stage of the Public Utility Commission writing the relevant administrative rules.

The lawyers who are being fully employed in the matter aren't there because the law is confusing -- lots of them, in fact, are probably working their little buns off trying to add confusion to the matter. During last year's session, they lobbied to get sentences added to amendments that they could subsequently exploit to tunnel out a loophole, and now they're doing the tunneling.

If the AG, the administrative law judge and the PUC conclude that it's too much of a mess to reach an agreement on, they'll ask the legislature for more guidance. That might mean the law as passed wasn't clear enough, or it might mean that lawyers like the one TheO profiled succeeded in making it less clear. A two-year delay in enforcing something like SB408 would be a victory for anybody who might be collecting millions of tax dollars and not required to turn it over to the state, no?

Regarding Blizzak's original assertion that "The government used to be charged with protecting life, liberty, and property," I have to disagree just a bit.

The U.S. Constitution was established to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . ."

The Oregon Constitution states that "all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. . ."

Maybe it's just me, but "general welfare" and "peace, safety and happiness" seem a pretty broad mandate for government created by the people to work actively toward achieving those ends.

Suzii explains it best.

I got this same question from a constituent who i was working on a bill with. (Which eventually passed.) She said, "This is complicated! Can't we just say such-and-such?"

So we started over (much to LC's chagrin), writing the bill from a very simple standpoint. And she said, "Well, we should plug this loophole." And we did. Then I said, "This here could be interpreted two different ways..." And we fixed that.

And after a while, she says to me, "Well, that's just as complicated as the first version... but I guess it has to be."

"Why can't -- or don't -- legislators write laws that are unambiguous and that don't require lawyers"

Because laws are embodied in words and language, which by their nature are imprecise, carrying meanings that are vague and shifting, and are imperfect devices to capture concepts and intentions we understand as "law." The question itself reveals the impossibility of the task: even assuming it could be done, who would have the skills to assemble the the words that are "unambiguous"? People trained in the usage of words to convey meanings of regulation, prohibition, and permission: lawyers. Life is complex -- deal with it.

Thanks for the responses. The kids and I have been laid up with the norovirus and I haven't had a chance to reply.

I understand the law is complicated, people are argumentative and manipulative and that words can be imprecise, as well. But the question remains, at least in my mind. This law was specifically written to address this issue - at least in principle, was it not? If they made it overly broad - to allow for unforeseen - or yet to happen - events, it seems to me they failed. What good is trying to be all-encompassing, if it doesn't serve the original intent?

Why dicker around and write laws that are unenforceable or incomprehensible? So all these cogs in the system can maintain job security by trying to figure out what was really meant?

I'm sorry, I think it's just really bizarre when a person gets chided for expecting those who make our laws and claim to be able to lead us to ...have the skills to assemble the words that are "unambiguous".

I know these are "citizen" legislators, and are not necessarily lawyers, but if they're incapable of writing coherently, they're not qualified.

<h2>I'm just a dumb voter, but I don't get paid when I produce garbage. Do you?</h2>