If Congress passes bad law, you're going to get bad results. In which case, Congress ought to change the law. Which, of course, it's moving to do, and the WaPo isn't happy about that either. I share the WaPo's basic concern, but it couches that concern in language that strikes me as plain weird.[T]he House bill would all but eliminate a statute of limitations, which was not Congress's original intent....
Even if the original intent of the legislature in passing a piece of legislation governs a court in interpreting a law, it most certainly doesn't bind a subsequent Congress amending that law.
Simon calls the WaPo reasoning "weird" while I opted for "bizarre." Either way it makes for interesting reading. The WaPo editorial is here.
No comments:
Post a Comment