-
@ma_makosh yeah definitions are always the tough part of legislation; you can't just pull something out of a dictionary, but rather must consider whether a judge and/or jury will be able to adequately apply the definition to law in a manner consistent with your legislative intentPermalink On twitter.com
❤️ 5 Favorites
Mood +1 🙂
-
@ma_makosh So, say you (for whatever reason) decide to pass a bill establishing a "wet items" sales tax. Now imagine a store fails to apply this tax to some water they sell. The store then gets prosecuted for it. What definition of "wet" would lead to the seller's conviction/acquittal?Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood -4 🙁
-
@ma_makosh (the answer to that question depends on which outcome you would *want* to achieve. Or rather, since the definition is going in a bill that gets voted on, it'd be which outcome a majority of you and your fellow legislators would want to achieve.)Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood +2 🙂
-
@ma_makosh For an example of this, check out the amendment process on HB1186, my "pet rescue" bill that I got passed: legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB1186/2022 It originally started without a definition of "companion animal" but during the hearing process, concerns were raised about the bill... [cont'd]Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood +2 🙂
-
@ma_makosh ...possibly applying to horses and elephants and other ridiculous edge cases. So we amended the bill to add a definition of "companion animal" that specifically excluded those cases, not because they don't count as "companion animals" in the metaphysical sense, but rather...Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood -5 🙁
-
@ma_makosh ...because we thought that, by excluding those cases, the bill would be more likely to pass. Which it did. So we wind up ending up with a situation where the definition of "companion animal" that I endorse legislatively is different from the one I'd endorse metaphysically.On twitter.com
❤️ 5 Favorites
Mood +4 🙂