Tightly detailed legislation strips interpreters of law-development and forces relentless amendments

Evidence

To the extent that a legislature follows the practice of trying to bind the future tightly with detailed rules it necessarily disables the agencies of interpretation (courts or administrative agencies ) from participating in the development of principles and policies, and saddles itself with the undivided burden of making needed readjustments in the future. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 3893

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to ch37’s division-of-labor question about who thinks about the rationale of decisional rules, and the courts-vs-legislature theme running through the whole volume. — connects to: Legislative workload precludes any informed deliberation on each bill — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 3854; Legislatures cannot foresee every result of unguarded statutory language — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1335; Detailed statutes force legislatures into future amendment burdens that interpretation could carry — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 3894 (+5 more)
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source

Broader Connections

• Detailed statutes force legislatures into future amendment burdens that interpretation could carry #corroborates (0.92) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 3894
• Law changes by layered accretion rather than revolutionary overhaul. #expands (0.75) — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 75
• Long-accepted administrative or popular constructions can fix statutory meaning. #contradicts (0.75) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 3558
• Literal statutory interpretations are defeasible starting points #responds-to (0.73) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 303
• Excessive legal rigidity aimed at mistrust produces misgovernment #complicates (0.72) — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 131