We keep hearing/reading, including from Sen. Jake Knotts, "If you can't read and understand the law, I don't want you making the law (or you don't deserve to make the law)." Pretty good line.
The catchy phrase conveniently makes a lot of sense. It's almost a perfect argument, actually. However, peel back the layers of past election cycles, and this phrase could backfire and embarrass many current lawmakers. Think of it. If almost 200 are guilty in this ONE cycle, how many other candidates (including current lawmakers) are guilty of the same thing since the law was written. Is there a reason we haven't heard from any of the statewide candidates? Hmmm......
I've also heard, "The law is the law, and if we don't follow it, then why have it?" I get that, too. I also understand when a flaw law exists, contradictions are present, or if they simply want to reverse/amend something, there are mechanisms in place to deal accordingly, and fix things. After all, the folks that construct the language aren't perfect. The Amazon reversal quickly comes to mind.
We'll see how all this will end up. I could've been wrong w/ a some statements in my post, the candidates (past and present) could have filed imperfectly, and the law could be imperfect whereas the candidates in question could have been "wronged." Who know how all this will end up, but I stick to my thinking, that given the massive sample number, something needs to be done.
In the end we'll all survive, perhaps even better, as when we're wrong it probably means we learned something. That's a good thing.
1 comment:
Amazon had nothing to do with right or wrong. That was all politics and grass roots. The people of Lexington wanted it and the Governor, one of their own, opposed it and pressured her people. Also, Dems saw an opportunity to get concessions from the GOP before committing. That was pure politics. The election issue is purely the law on it's face
Post a Comment