Unfortunately, the law in question contains wiggle room that democrats will attempt to use to grant illegals the right to vote. Would the Supreme Court allow illegals to vote under ‘certain’ conditions? Ya never know.
All laws and all language contain “wiggle room.”
That is not the problem, I would say. The problem is whether or not those who disagree about the meaning of a law or its application or some other aspect of it are disputing and discussing in good faith.
For example, if one is negotiating with Hamas, one is tilting at windmills. That is futile. They never negtiate in good faith because their faith does not require truth above all else. Their faith requires submission above all else. So, whatever means are employed to obtain the advantage leading to subjecting others to submission to their faith is considered virtuous.
And of course that formulation is nothing more than an elaorate rationalization of might makes right regardless of what is actually right and just and true.
It is simply not possible to write a perfect law. I would invite you to try it.
And this is rendered all the more impossible when 500+ office holders must agree to the language for a law to be instantiated.
So, real life is messy and smelly and ambiguous and fraught with unresolvable dilemmas - just like people are. Plato’s philosopher kings is a flight of fancy. It is not, as we can see clearly, a realistic governing model. Our so-called expert culture that believes all things can be shown to be true (obviously false) demonstrates this.
It is what is in a man’s heart that defines his propensity to be civilized. Without a moral framework to which he agrees to subject himself, then no law will ever bridle his passions and impulses. Our laws are being undermined because those who are hired to enforce it and preserve it and protect it do not agree that it proceeds from any point of reference. Despite what the documents say, and despite the clear appeal in those documents to the Metaphysical for underlying authority, they are attempting to have their cake and eat it to. They want to pretend that a law can exist without an Authority beyond and above the police or the courts (i.e., themselves).
That is a doomed and imbecilic notion.
I could go on, but I think I beat this horse to death three paragraphs ago.
I don’t agree with looking to the law to settle arguments, but to men of good faith grounded in immutable principles of integrity. Those men will not be perfect, their laws will not be perfect, but they will, more or less, continue to aspire to do what is right and just. If they do so out of personal conviction that is great. If they do it out of fear of sanctions or punishment for transgressing the laws, that works too. This happens to be called justice. I confess sometimes I am the former camp and sometimes I am in the latter.