>"But none of them are tapped into the objective “what a law is”. Because that doesn’t exist."
Well there are canons of interpretation, each of which describes how one can read and understand what legislation and law mean. You seem to be dismissing the canons as being incorrect, and I'm not exactly sure why.
Do you think it is possible to interpret a law faithfully? What about a contract?
I’m not dismissing canons of interpretation as being incorrect. I’m stating that canons of interpretation are themselves nothing more than subjective opinion. And there are surely many versions. Some of which align with conservative beliefs and some of which align with liberal beliefs. So what is a “correct” canon of interpretation? Or are canons of interpretation just another layer of obfuscation used to pretend there are objective opinions?
Well there are canons of interpretation, each of which describes how one can read and understand what legislation and law mean. You seem to be dismissing the canons as being incorrect, and I'm not exactly sure why.
Do you think it is possible to interpret a law faithfully? What about a contract?