Unfortunately, it’s not possible to be as clear as that in all occasions.
First, U.S. codified law has been written at various times over a period of over 200 years, and was based on a history hundreds of years older than that.
Second, the U.S. is a common law system, which means in general the courts are responsible for interpreting what the law means. They will only do this when a case is brought before them, and occasionally different courts will disagree as to an interpretation of the laws. If the difference is important enough, it may get resolved by a Supreme Court ruling – but the Court will only be able to interpret based on the facts before it, and is conservative in making pronouncements on what the law is that don’t really have an effect on the parties before it. Laws are not written clearly often because we have this system to try to clarify the intent of the laws, because governments can’t anticipate every situation that might arise when a certain wrong is committed. Because of the common law system, the law may have gaps and conflicts.
Third, because we have a federal system, the national government governs certain areas of the law (e.g., immigration) and the states govern other areas (e.g., family law), and in some areas there is significant overlap (e.g., criminal law). So their may be uncertainty at times whether one or the other law governs, or whether they conflict, etc. Further, state laws must meet the fundamental rights requirements under the Federal Constitution, and sometimes it isn’t clear that it may not meet such standards until the perfect set of facts comes along. Also, in cases where both state and federal law is implicated, there may be conflict about whether the claim should be sent to the federal or the state court. And when the decision is made, one state may interpret a federal law differently than another, and a federal court may be called on to determine what a state court would do in the given situation (and may decide incorrectly). These interactions call into question what a law means all the time.
Fourth, law is also interpreted by regulatory parties, and some times a party has to go through the administrative system prior to getting access to the courts. These administrative cases are governed by the appropriate federal agency (e.g., the EEOC for employment discrimination issues). The agency may interpret the law much like the courts if the law appears to be unclear on a certain point (e.g., what does “significant harm” mean?). The agency interpretation may in some cases be questioned in the court. Therefore, there may be a question there.
Fifth, as we interact more with other nations, we take into account the applicability of those nations laws.
Sixth, the law is constantly changing. Cases which seem like they offer a clear interpretation of the law need to be checked to see if they represent the state of the law today. This built-in flexibility breeds uncertainty, but allows us to remedy errors in the law with arguably relative ease. Easy and clear laws require some measure of permanence – if those laws end up being harmful because of unintended consequences or outdated considerations, such measure of permanence would most likely make them difficult to redraft.
Seventh, the areas of law interact with each other. Something that is a crime also may also have civil liability. If someone is charged with negligent manslaughter and brought before a criminal court, the jury has to be (theoretically) absolutely sure that the person is guilty in order to convict. If that person is brought up on civil charges for money damages related to the death, that jury only needs to be more certain than not that the person is guilty of the crime. Something allowed under property laws may be a civil rights violation, a provision suitable under contract law may violate family law. Each case may help to clarify what happens in these situations – but until it does lawyers have to interpret.
Eighth, there’s a very human element to consider. I’ll only speak to juries, but you have to rely on those people getting the law right and not being swayed by irrelevant factors. Many times, you fail. When that happens, a result may seem like it makes little sense when one reads the law. However, because the people are the gatekeepers on that level, their input adds another layer of uncertainty.
I’ll stop there…but I hope that provides at least some explanation as to why, although nice in theory, laws can’t really be written with the clarity most (including lawyers) would like. I’m not saying drafters can’t do a better job than now, but law is a process, not an object. For the most part, I’ll take the uncertainty as a trade off for a more humane system (e.g., I’m glad we no longer legally sterilize people varying level of mental retardation).
Composing members:
0
