[matthew fuller]

" the unknowable.....what was meant by NBC. "

That part of your statement is proof that reasonable and responsible people can have varying interpretations of NBC, therefore the law as written is too vague to intelligently and consistently enforce, and should by repaired by amendment or supreme court decision, and I prefer legislative remedy over judicial intervention. But the amendment process will not be attempted without a ruling from the SC.

[C. Edmund Wright]

That part of your statement is proof that reasonable and responsible people can have varying interpretations of NBC, therefore the law as written is too vague to intelligently and consistently enforce, and should by repaired by amendment or supreme court decision, and I prefer legislative remedy over judicial intervention.

So so so many problems in such a short response: but mainly the idea that a law too vague to intelligently enforce should probably be ignored. Complication is the bureaucratic devil's playground. The intent of the law CLEARLY does not impact Cruz. To a true conservative, the intent of the law is superior to the letter of the law when the letter A: contradicts the intent or B: is a mumble jumble.

Second, there HAVE been some legislative clarifications that tend to ease the burden on this.

Third, there are NO CONSERVATIVE LEGAL SCHOLARS who think this is a problem, including Cruz himself.

[sten]

the ‘interpretation’ only varies when people are trying to slide something by the rest of us.