"...laws that are too vague or complex to be understood..."
Rightfully, you echo Madison in The Federalist Papers,
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood..."
I submit the Rule of Law is actually the Myth of Law and serves more as a fig leaf covering up the Rule of Men, because in reality, men interpret laws. Society is probably better off with the Myth of Law than with the Rule of Men, but it's a low bar with not much difference, other than the Rule of Men lets everyone know sooner that things have changed.
Exhibit One is that juries have to be unanimous, and decide in hours or days. Then an Appeals court steps in, and a year later decides 2-1 to overturn the jury verdict. Then the Appeals court sits en banc and takes another year to reverse themselves 8-7 and confirm the jury verdict. Then another year goes by, and the Supreme Court reverses the jury verdict 5-4. By this time, the guy has already served his sentence. How can anyone pretend laws are clear and objective when appeals courts are allowed split decisions, but not juries, and no one thinks for a moment how the defendant was supposed to know all this years of waffling ahead of time?
That's not justice, it's not the Rule of Law. It's the Rule of Men, and it's ritual.
"...laws that are too vague or complex to be understood..."
Rightfully, you echo Madison in The Federalist Papers,
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood..."
This is an issue that's been the plight of law-abiding bicyclists for almost a century.
https://principledbicycling.substack.com/p/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists?utm_source=publication-search
I submit the Rule of Law is actually the Myth of Law and serves more as a fig leaf covering up the Rule of Men, because in reality, men interpret laws. Society is probably better off with the Myth of Law than with the Rule of Men, but it's a low bar with not much difference, other than the Rule of Men lets everyone know sooner that things have changed.
Exhibit One is that juries have to be unanimous, and decide in hours or days. Then an Appeals court steps in, and a year later decides 2-1 to overturn the jury verdict. Then the Appeals court sits en banc and takes another year to reverse themselves 8-7 and confirm the jury verdict. Then another year goes by, and the Supreme Court reverses the jury verdict 5-4. By this time, the guy has already served his sentence. How can anyone pretend laws are clear and objective when appeals courts are allowed split decisions, but not juries, and no one thinks for a moment how the defendant was supposed to know all this years of waffling ahead of time?
That's not justice, it's not the Rule of Law. It's the Rule of Men, and it's ritual.