What problems or issues do you see with the wording of the statute?

Answer 1

Statutes are supposed to be written in order to state without any ambiguity what it means. This is somewhat impossible since each and every person alive is a chance to interpret the meaning of the statute differently. Great effort must be taken to make sure this doesn't happen. That is why, at the time it was written, the US Constitution covered things it needed to, but has since had to be amended to cover things that apply now. Leaving a "legal loophole" allows the statute to become in essence useless and ineffective.
Case in point--although not a statue. I was in a military police company in the Army. My unit was not the unit assigned to post law enforcement duties. That was the PMO's job and their MPs did road duty. So we complained to our company commander that we also wanted experience with the law enforcement side of being an MP, not just the MP-CSO or combat support operations aspect. We asked for a new company operational plan that would give us more road time. Up to this point we got a week of road duty on the post. It was the normal schedule of three days on, two off and another day on til our week of duty was up. So, the wording of the new operational plan mentioned something like ..."In order to provide the personnel with more road duty skills". Now keep in mind this is what we asked for right? Here's where the interpretation factor comes in. Instead of getting two weeks a month of road duty--like we really wanted, we had the days off in our one week of road duty taken out. Thus, we worked more hours/days of road skills each month. We were never able to have the op plan worded the way we wanted. So, we still got to go to the field for training exercises a couple weeks every month.

Answer 2

Any particular statute in mind?

Answer 3

What statute?