What if a law is literally impossible to follow?











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












This question originated from the Australian encryption debate, but I am mainly asking about the US. Just to keep things simple (if a bit absurd), suppose the US passed a law that says, "Every citizen is required `to provide the government with a valid solution to the equation 0x=50, and will otherwise be jailed."



I'd like to think this would simply never happen, but the reality is that the US government has already done various other things that I would have hoped would be in the "never ever" category.



Although it probably wouldn't be as blatant as the above example, it seems to me that it is possible the US could pass a law that is literally impossible to comply with. What would happen if it did?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • 0x=50, x=50/0, or +Infinity...
    – Ron Beyer
    6 hours ago






  • 5




    @RonBeyer Infinity does not satisfy the equation and therefore it is not a solution: Substituting x with ∞ and subtracting 50 from both sides of the equation would have to lead to 0∞ - 50 = 0, which we know is false regardless of whether 0∞ is defined as 0 (in which case 0-50=-50) or as (in which case ∞-50=∞). Thus, citizens would still be unable to comply with that mandate or law.
    – Iñaki Viggers
    5 hours ago








  • 1




    @IñakiViggers: While mathematically untrue, infinity may be the correct answer; after all, the answer is being checked by the government. Wasn't there a state that declared Pi to be equal to 3, for example, and the Australian Prime Minister (who is part of the party that sparked this question) has declared "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia."
    – sharur
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    @sharur "Wasn't there a state that declared Pi to be equal to 3, for example" That is an urban legend. There was a bill proposed which would hive implied (not declared) an incorrect value for Pi as part of an incorrect scheme to square the circle.. But it did not pass. See Indiana Pi Bill at Wikipedia
    – David Siegel
    2 hours ago








  • 1




    @sharur True, but it has often been asserted that the bill was in support of biblical literalism (which has sometimes argued for Pi=3) while it was actually idiosyncratic mathematical crankiness. The legend is a) that the bill said pi=3; b) that it was biblically motivated; and c) that it passed. I always get a giggle out of the suggestion that the bill be referred to the committee on swamps. Your basic point is, of course, valid.
    – David Siegel
    1 hour ago

















up vote
4
down vote

favorite












This question originated from the Australian encryption debate, but I am mainly asking about the US. Just to keep things simple (if a bit absurd), suppose the US passed a law that says, "Every citizen is required `to provide the government with a valid solution to the equation 0x=50, and will otherwise be jailed."



I'd like to think this would simply never happen, but the reality is that the US government has already done various other things that I would have hoped would be in the "never ever" category.



Although it probably wouldn't be as blatant as the above example, it seems to me that it is possible the US could pass a law that is literally impossible to comply with. What would happen if it did?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • 0x=50, x=50/0, or +Infinity...
    – Ron Beyer
    6 hours ago






  • 5




    @RonBeyer Infinity does not satisfy the equation and therefore it is not a solution: Substituting x with ∞ and subtracting 50 from both sides of the equation would have to lead to 0∞ - 50 = 0, which we know is false regardless of whether 0∞ is defined as 0 (in which case 0-50=-50) or as (in which case ∞-50=∞). Thus, citizens would still be unable to comply with that mandate or law.
    – Iñaki Viggers
    5 hours ago








  • 1




    @IñakiViggers: While mathematically untrue, infinity may be the correct answer; after all, the answer is being checked by the government. Wasn't there a state that declared Pi to be equal to 3, for example, and the Australian Prime Minister (who is part of the party that sparked this question) has declared "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia."
    – sharur
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    @sharur "Wasn't there a state that declared Pi to be equal to 3, for example" That is an urban legend. There was a bill proposed which would hive implied (not declared) an incorrect value for Pi as part of an incorrect scheme to square the circle.. But it did not pass. See Indiana Pi Bill at Wikipedia
    – David Siegel
    2 hours ago








  • 1




    @sharur True, but it has often been asserted that the bill was in support of biblical literalism (which has sometimes argued for Pi=3) while it was actually idiosyncratic mathematical crankiness. The legend is a) that the bill said pi=3; b) that it was biblically motivated; and c) that it passed. I always get a giggle out of the suggestion that the bill be referred to the committee on swamps. Your basic point is, of course, valid.
    – David Siegel
    1 hour ago















up vote
4
down vote

favorite









up vote
4
down vote

favorite











This question originated from the Australian encryption debate, but I am mainly asking about the US. Just to keep things simple (if a bit absurd), suppose the US passed a law that says, "Every citizen is required `to provide the government with a valid solution to the equation 0x=50, and will otherwise be jailed."



I'd like to think this would simply never happen, but the reality is that the US government has already done various other things that I would have hoped would be in the "never ever" category.



Although it probably wouldn't be as blatant as the above example, it seems to me that it is possible the US could pass a law that is literally impossible to comply with. What would happen if it did?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











This question originated from the Australian encryption debate, but I am mainly asking about the US. Just to keep things simple (if a bit absurd), suppose the US passed a law that says, "Every citizen is required `to provide the government with a valid solution to the equation 0x=50, and will otherwise be jailed."



I'd like to think this would simply never happen, but the reality is that the US government has already done various other things that I would have hoped would be in the "never ever" category.



Although it probably wouldn't be as blatant as the above example, it seems to me that it is possible the US could pass a law that is literally impossible to comply with. What would happen if it did?







united-states






share|improve this question







New contributor




Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 7 hours ago









Anon

211




211




New contributor




Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • 0x=50, x=50/0, or +Infinity...
    – Ron Beyer
    6 hours ago






  • 5




    @RonBeyer Infinity does not satisfy the equation and therefore it is not a solution: Substituting x with ∞ and subtracting 50 from both sides of the equation would have to lead to 0∞ - 50 = 0, which we know is false regardless of whether 0∞ is defined as 0 (in which case 0-50=-50) or as (in which case ∞-50=∞). Thus, citizens would still be unable to comply with that mandate or law.
    – Iñaki Viggers
    5 hours ago








  • 1




    @IñakiViggers: While mathematically untrue, infinity may be the correct answer; after all, the answer is being checked by the government. Wasn't there a state that declared Pi to be equal to 3, for example, and the Australian Prime Minister (who is part of the party that sparked this question) has declared "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia."
    – sharur
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    @sharur "Wasn't there a state that declared Pi to be equal to 3, for example" That is an urban legend. There was a bill proposed which would hive implied (not declared) an incorrect value for Pi as part of an incorrect scheme to square the circle.. But it did not pass. See Indiana Pi Bill at Wikipedia
    – David Siegel
    2 hours ago








  • 1




    @sharur True, but it has often been asserted that the bill was in support of biblical literalism (which has sometimes argued for Pi=3) while it was actually idiosyncratic mathematical crankiness. The legend is a) that the bill said pi=3; b) that it was biblically motivated; and c) that it passed. I always get a giggle out of the suggestion that the bill be referred to the committee on swamps. Your basic point is, of course, valid.
    – David Siegel
    1 hour ago




















  • 0x=50, x=50/0, or +Infinity...
    – Ron Beyer
    6 hours ago






  • 5




    @RonBeyer Infinity does not satisfy the equation and therefore it is not a solution: Substituting x with ∞ and subtracting 50 from both sides of the equation would have to lead to 0∞ - 50 = 0, which we know is false regardless of whether 0∞ is defined as 0 (in which case 0-50=-50) or as (in which case ∞-50=∞). Thus, citizens would still be unable to comply with that mandate or law.
    – Iñaki Viggers
    5 hours ago








  • 1




    @IñakiViggers: While mathematically untrue, infinity may be the correct answer; after all, the answer is being checked by the government. Wasn't there a state that declared Pi to be equal to 3, for example, and the Australian Prime Minister (who is part of the party that sparked this question) has declared "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia."
    – sharur
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    @sharur "Wasn't there a state that declared Pi to be equal to 3, for example" That is an urban legend. There was a bill proposed which would hive implied (not declared) an incorrect value for Pi as part of an incorrect scheme to square the circle.. But it did not pass. See Indiana Pi Bill at Wikipedia
    – David Siegel
    2 hours ago








  • 1




    @sharur True, but it has often been asserted that the bill was in support of biblical literalism (which has sometimes argued for Pi=3) while it was actually idiosyncratic mathematical crankiness. The legend is a) that the bill said pi=3; b) that it was biblically motivated; and c) that it passed. I always get a giggle out of the suggestion that the bill be referred to the committee on swamps. Your basic point is, of course, valid.
    – David Siegel
    1 hour ago


















0x=50, x=50/0, or +Infinity...
– Ron Beyer
6 hours ago




0x=50, x=50/0, or +Infinity...
– Ron Beyer
6 hours ago




5




5




@RonBeyer Infinity does not satisfy the equation and therefore it is not a solution: Substituting x with ∞ and subtracting 50 from both sides of the equation would have to lead to 0∞ - 50 = 0, which we know is false regardless of whether 0∞ is defined as 0 (in which case 0-50=-50) or as (in which case ∞-50=∞). Thus, citizens would still be unable to comply with that mandate or law.
– Iñaki Viggers
5 hours ago






@RonBeyer Infinity does not satisfy the equation and therefore it is not a solution: Substituting x with ∞ and subtracting 50 from both sides of the equation would have to lead to 0∞ - 50 = 0, which we know is false regardless of whether 0∞ is defined as 0 (in which case 0-50=-50) or as (in which case ∞-50=∞). Thus, citizens would still be unable to comply with that mandate or law.
– Iñaki Viggers
5 hours ago






1




1




@IñakiViggers: While mathematically untrue, infinity may be the correct answer; after all, the answer is being checked by the government. Wasn't there a state that declared Pi to be equal to 3, for example, and the Australian Prime Minister (who is part of the party that sparked this question) has declared "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia."
– sharur
2 hours ago




@IñakiViggers: While mathematically untrue, infinity may be the correct answer; after all, the answer is being checked by the government. Wasn't there a state that declared Pi to be equal to 3, for example, and the Australian Prime Minister (who is part of the party that sparked this question) has declared "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia."
– sharur
2 hours ago




1




1




@sharur "Wasn't there a state that declared Pi to be equal to 3, for example" That is an urban legend. There was a bill proposed which would hive implied (not declared) an incorrect value for Pi as part of an incorrect scheme to square the circle.. But it did not pass. See Indiana Pi Bill at Wikipedia
– David Siegel
2 hours ago






@sharur "Wasn't there a state that declared Pi to be equal to 3, for example" That is an urban legend. There was a bill proposed which would hive implied (not declared) an incorrect value for Pi as part of an incorrect scheme to square the circle.. But it did not pass. See Indiana Pi Bill at Wikipedia
– David Siegel
2 hours ago






1




1




@sharur True, but it has often been asserted that the bill was in support of biblical literalism (which has sometimes argued for Pi=3) while it was actually idiosyncratic mathematical crankiness. The legend is a) that the bill said pi=3; b) that it was biblically motivated; and c) that it passed. I always get a giggle out of the suggestion that the bill be referred to the committee on swamps. Your basic point is, of course, valid.
– David Siegel
1 hour ago






@sharur True, but it has often been asserted that the bill was in support of biblical literalism (which has sometimes argued for Pi=3) while it was actually idiosyncratic mathematical crankiness. The legend is a) that the bill said pi=3; b) that it was biblically motivated; and c) that it passed. I always get a giggle out of the suggestion that the bill be referred to the committee on swamps. Your basic point is, of course, valid.
– David Siegel
1 hour ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote














it seems to me that it is possible the US could pass a law that is
literally impossible to comply with. What would happen if it did?




The court would need to ascertain (1) the legislative intent, (2) whether it or the statutory language is unconstitutional, and/or (3) whether it is enforceable.



Apropos of unenforceable laws, see In re Initiative Petition No. 364, 930 P.2d 186, 201 (1996)




Unenforceable law is the very antonym of an initiative-authorized legal product. Proposing for adoption (through the initiative process)
a measure that is facially incapable of application as a state law is as much an oxymoron as "gentle cruelty" or "deft clumsiness."




(italics in original)



A scenario of the sort of "solving" the absurd equation 0x=50 ought to be held unconstitutional insofar as it would be "nothing more than a state-compelled false statement" (see Entertainment Software Ass'n v. Hatch, 443 F.Supp.2d 1065 (2006), which was affirmed) with obvious infringements of people's First Amendment rights. The only possibility of survival of that requirement would be if it were evident that legislative intent contemplated a special arithmetic where the zero-element differs from the role that number 0 has in traditional arithmetic.






share|improve this answer























  • The Oklahoma supreme court has clearly never seen Chinese Drunken Boxing, or "deft clumsiness" would not have been their word choice =)
    – Cort Ammon
    1 hour ago


















up vote
4
down vote













Firstly, all laws passed by congress are done for public policy reasons. Therefore, for your hypothetical, assuming that Congress knew that it was impossible for some citizens to answer the question, there must be a public policy reason to make it impossible to comply. Perhaps they are trying to get rid of the mathematically illiterate? The thing is that impossible to follow laws have been passed and defended in court in the past. Below is a link to one such incident.



https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/29/californias-top-court-impossible-laws-no



There is nothing wrong with making impossible to follow laws. There are laws that get passed that make businesses go bankrupt because they cannot take the heat. The question is: are these impossible to follow laws constitutional? If they are then they stand in court. If they are not then they fall apart in court. I would argue that in the case of your hypothetical it would be unconstitutional. It would deprive the mathematically literate of rights granted to other citizens. It would also not be ADA (americans with disabilities act) compliant. Many disabled people are by nature of their disability mathematically illiterate. There are probably other reasons why it would be unconstitutional but nothing comes to mind.



EDIT: It has come to my attention that the equation is literally impossible to resolve. I suppose the article is less applicable as a result. However my point stands. Being impossible to follow changes nothing. All that matters is the intent behind the policy. In the hypo Congress intends to imprison everyone. I'm sure the courts would find that unconsitutional. On the other hand, suppose Congress were to pass a law saying "Peanuts are banned unless they were acquired from the core of the sun". That is impossible. Congress' intent would be to simply ban peanuts outright. Sounds pretty constitutional to me. Therefore it will stand in a court of law.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




S J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 1




    "Nothing wrong"?? If so, something is wrong with the legislature, lawyers or the constitution, for that matter. Secondly, "mathematical literacy" has nothing to do here: compliance is impossible whether one is mathematically literate or not. The literate ones will just understand why.
    – Zeus
    2 hours ago










  • @Zeus An impossible to follow law could be very effective at carrying out a policy. That is why impossible to follow laws are perfectly fine. See the link above if you are not convinced. Furthermore, mathematical literacy is very relevant. If congress' laws are made with the intent of pursuing a policy then in OP'S hypo the only possible policy I can think of is imprisonment of the mathematically illiterate. The point is that the court is going to ask "is this policy constitutional?"
    – S J
    2 hours ago












  • That's a rather biased article trying to push a specific interpretation of "impossible" to make the laws sound more unreasonable than they are. "Impossible" is a very different thing from "we don't know how to do it yet", especially for laws that say "by the year 20xx, you'll have to be able to meet these requirements to do this thing" instead of "by the year right now, you must meet these requirements to do this thing".
    – user2357112
    2 hours ago












  • @user2357112 the same applies to OP's hypo. Most people can learn the answer to that equation. They just don't know how yet.
    – S J
    2 hours ago










  • I read the article, thanks for that. But the conclusion is rather the opposite: the lawyers/legislators may see it OK, but it doesn't automatically make it reasonable. And being unreasonable is exactly "wrong" in my book. With literacy, I still don't understand how the literate ones could escape the prison: they would still be unable to provide the answer.
    – Zeus
    2 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






Anon is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34260%2fwhat-if-a-law-is-literally-impossible-to-follow%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
5
down vote














it seems to me that it is possible the US could pass a law that is
literally impossible to comply with. What would happen if it did?




The court would need to ascertain (1) the legislative intent, (2) whether it or the statutory language is unconstitutional, and/or (3) whether it is enforceable.



Apropos of unenforceable laws, see In re Initiative Petition No. 364, 930 P.2d 186, 201 (1996)




Unenforceable law is the very antonym of an initiative-authorized legal product. Proposing for adoption (through the initiative process)
a measure that is facially incapable of application as a state law is as much an oxymoron as "gentle cruelty" or "deft clumsiness."




(italics in original)



A scenario of the sort of "solving" the absurd equation 0x=50 ought to be held unconstitutional insofar as it would be "nothing more than a state-compelled false statement" (see Entertainment Software Ass'n v. Hatch, 443 F.Supp.2d 1065 (2006), which was affirmed) with obvious infringements of people's First Amendment rights. The only possibility of survival of that requirement would be if it were evident that legislative intent contemplated a special arithmetic where the zero-element differs from the role that number 0 has in traditional arithmetic.






share|improve this answer























  • The Oklahoma supreme court has clearly never seen Chinese Drunken Boxing, or "deft clumsiness" would not have been their word choice =)
    – Cort Ammon
    1 hour ago















up vote
5
down vote














it seems to me that it is possible the US could pass a law that is
literally impossible to comply with. What would happen if it did?




The court would need to ascertain (1) the legislative intent, (2) whether it or the statutory language is unconstitutional, and/or (3) whether it is enforceable.



Apropos of unenforceable laws, see In re Initiative Petition No. 364, 930 P.2d 186, 201 (1996)




Unenforceable law is the very antonym of an initiative-authorized legal product. Proposing for adoption (through the initiative process)
a measure that is facially incapable of application as a state law is as much an oxymoron as "gentle cruelty" or "deft clumsiness."




(italics in original)



A scenario of the sort of "solving" the absurd equation 0x=50 ought to be held unconstitutional insofar as it would be "nothing more than a state-compelled false statement" (see Entertainment Software Ass'n v. Hatch, 443 F.Supp.2d 1065 (2006), which was affirmed) with obvious infringements of people's First Amendment rights. The only possibility of survival of that requirement would be if it were evident that legislative intent contemplated a special arithmetic where the zero-element differs from the role that number 0 has in traditional arithmetic.






share|improve this answer























  • The Oklahoma supreme court has clearly never seen Chinese Drunken Boxing, or "deft clumsiness" would not have been their word choice =)
    – Cort Ammon
    1 hour ago













up vote
5
down vote










up vote
5
down vote










it seems to me that it is possible the US could pass a law that is
literally impossible to comply with. What would happen if it did?




The court would need to ascertain (1) the legislative intent, (2) whether it or the statutory language is unconstitutional, and/or (3) whether it is enforceable.



Apropos of unenforceable laws, see In re Initiative Petition No. 364, 930 P.2d 186, 201 (1996)




Unenforceable law is the very antonym of an initiative-authorized legal product. Proposing for adoption (through the initiative process)
a measure that is facially incapable of application as a state law is as much an oxymoron as "gentle cruelty" or "deft clumsiness."




(italics in original)



A scenario of the sort of "solving" the absurd equation 0x=50 ought to be held unconstitutional insofar as it would be "nothing more than a state-compelled false statement" (see Entertainment Software Ass'n v. Hatch, 443 F.Supp.2d 1065 (2006), which was affirmed) with obvious infringements of people's First Amendment rights. The only possibility of survival of that requirement would be if it were evident that legislative intent contemplated a special arithmetic where the zero-element differs from the role that number 0 has in traditional arithmetic.






share|improve this answer















it seems to me that it is possible the US could pass a law that is
literally impossible to comply with. What would happen if it did?




The court would need to ascertain (1) the legislative intent, (2) whether it or the statutory language is unconstitutional, and/or (3) whether it is enforceable.



Apropos of unenforceable laws, see In re Initiative Petition No. 364, 930 P.2d 186, 201 (1996)




Unenforceable law is the very antonym of an initiative-authorized legal product. Proposing for adoption (through the initiative process)
a measure that is facially incapable of application as a state law is as much an oxymoron as "gentle cruelty" or "deft clumsiness."




(italics in original)



A scenario of the sort of "solving" the absurd equation 0x=50 ought to be held unconstitutional insofar as it would be "nothing more than a state-compelled false statement" (see Entertainment Software Ass'n v. Hatch, 443 F.Supp.2d 1065 (2006), which was affirmed) with obvious infringements of people's First Amendment rights. The only possibility of survival of that requirement would be if it were evident that legislative intent contemplated a special arithmetic where the zero-element differs from the role that number 0 has in traditional arithmetic.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 6 hours ago

























answered 6 hours ago









Iñaki Viggers

4,4941315




4,4941315












  • The Oklahoma supreme court has clearly never seen Chinese Drunken Boxing, or "deft clumsiness" would not have been their word choice =)
    – Cort Ammon
    1 hour ago


















  • The Oklahoma supreme court has clearly never seen Chinese Drunken Boxing, or "deft clumsiness" would not have been their word choice =)
    – Cort Ammon
    1 hour ago
















The Oklahoma supreme court has clearly never seen Chinese Drunken Boxing, or "deft clumsiness" would not have been their word choice =)
– Cort Ammon
1 hour ago




The Oklahoma supreme court has clearly never seen Chinese Drunken Boxing, or "deft clumsiness" would not have been their word choice =)
– Cort Ammon
1 hour ago










up vote
4
down vote













Firstly, all laws passed by congress are done for public policy reasons. Therefore, for your hypothetical, assuming that Congress knew that it was impossible for some citizens to answer the question, there must be a public policy reason to make it impossible to comply. Perhaps they are trying to get rid of the mathematically illiterate? The thing is that impossible to follow laws have been passed and defended in court in the past. Below is a link to one such incident.



https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/29/californias-top-court-impossible-laws-no



There is nothing wrong with making impossible to follow laws. There are laws that get passed that make businesses go bankrupt because they cannot take the heat. The question is: are these impossible to follow laws constitutional? If they are then they stand in court. If they are not then they fall apart in court. I would argue that in the case of your hypothetical it would be unconstitutional. It would deprive the mathematically literate of rights granted to other citizens. It would also not be ADA (americans with disabilities act) compliant. Many disabled people are by nature of their disability mathematically illiterate. There are probably other reasons why it would be unconstitutional but nothing comes to mind.



EDIT: It has come to my attention that the equation is literally impossible to resolve. I suppose the article is less applicable as a result. However my point stands. Being impossible to follow changes nothing. All that matters is the intent behind the policy. In the hypo Congress intends to imprison everyone. I'm sure the courts would find that unconsitutional. On the other hand, suppose Congress were to pass a law saying "Peanuts are banned unless they were acquired from the core of the sun". That is impossible. Congress' intent would be to simply ban peanuts outright. Sounds pretty constitutional to me. Therefore it will stand in a court of law.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




S J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 1




    "Nothing wrong"?? If so, something is wrong with the legislature, lawyers or the constitution, for that matter. Secondly, "mathematical literacy" has nothing to do here: compliance is impossible whether one is mathematically literate or not. The literate ones will just understand why.
    – Zeus
    2 hours ago










  • @Zeus An impossible to follow law could be very effective at carrying out a policy. That is why impossible to follow laws are perfectly fine. See the link above if you are not convinced. Furthermore, mathematical literacy is very relevant. If congress' laws are made with the intent of pursuing a policy then in OP'S hypo the only possible policy I can think of is imprisonment of the mathematically illiterate. The point is that the court is going to ask "is this policy constitutional?"
    – S J
    2 hours ago












  • That's a rather biased article trying to push a specific interpretation of "impossible" to make the laws sound more unreasonable than they are. "Impossible" is a very different thing from "we don't know how to do it yet", especially for laws that say "by the year 20xx, you'll have to be able to meet these requirements to do this thing" instead of "by the year right now, you must meet these requirements to do this thing".
    – user2357112
    2 hours ago












  • @user2357112 the same applies to OP's hypo. Most people can learn the answer to that equation. They just don't know how yet.
    – S J
    2 hours ago










  • I read the article, thanks for that. But the conclusion is rather the opposite: the lawyers/legislators may see it OK, but it doesn't automatically make it reasonable. And being unreasonable is exactly "wrong" in my book. With literacy, I still don't understand how the literate ones could escape the prison: they would still be unable to provide the answer.
    – Zeus
    2 hours ago















up vote
4
down vote













Firstly, all laws passed by congress are done for public policy reasons. Therefore, for your hypothetical, assuming that Congress knew that it was impossible for some citizens to answer the question, there must be a public policy reason to make it impossible to comply. Perhaps they are trying to get rid of the mathematically illiterate? The thing is that impossible to follow laws have been passed and defended in court in the past. Below is a link to one such incident.



https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/29/californias-top-court-impossible-laws-no



There is nothing wrong with making impossible to follow laws. There are laws that get passed that make businesses go bankrupt because they cannot take the heat. The question is: are these impossible to follow laws constitutional? If they are then they stand in court. If they are not then they fall apart in court. I would argue that in the case of your hypothetical it would be unconstitutional. It would deprive the mathematically literate of rights granted to other citizens. It would also not be ADA (americans with disabilities act) compliant. Many disabled people are by nature of their disability mathematically illiterate. There are probably other reasons why it would be unconstitutional but nothing comes to mind.



EDIT: It has come to my attention that the equation is literally impossible to resolve. I suppose the article is less applicable as a result. However my point stands. Being impossible to follow changes nothing. All that matters is the intent behind the policy. In the hypo Congress intends to imprison everyone. I'm sure the courts would find that unconsitutional. On the other hand, suppose Congress were to pass a law saying "Peanuts are banned unless they were acquired from the core of the sun". That is impossible. Congress' intent would be to simply ban peanuts outright. Sounds pretty constitutional to me. Therefore it will stand in a court of law.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




S J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 1




    "Nothing wrong"?? If so, something is wrong with the legislature, lawyers or the constitution, for that matter. Secondly, "mathematical literacy" has nothing to do here: compliance is impossible whether one is mathematically literate or not. The literate ones will just understand why.
    – Zeus
    2 hours ago










  • @Zeus An impossible to follow law could be very effective at carrying out a policy. That is why impossible to follow laws are perfectly fine. See the link above if you are not convinced. Furthermore, mathematical literacy is very relevant. If congress' laws are made with the intent of pursuing a policy then in OP'S hypo the only possible policy I can think of is imprisonment of the mathematically illiterate. The point is that the court is going to ask "is this policy constitutional?"
    – S J
    2 hours ago












  • That's a rather biased article trying to push a specific interpretation of "impossible" to make the laws sound more unreasonable than they are. "Impossible" is a very different thing from "we don't know how to do it yet", especially for laws that say "by the year 20xx, you'll have to be able to meet these requirements to do this thing" instead of "by the year right now, you must meet these requirements to do this thing".
    – user2357112
    2 hours ago












  • @user2357112 the same applies to OP's hypo. Most people can learn the answer to that equation. They just don't know how yet.
    – S J
    2 hours ago










  • I read the article, thanks for that. But the conclusion is rather the opposite: the lawyers/legislators may see it OK, but it doesn't automatically make it reasonable. And being unreasonable is exactly "wrong" in my book. With literacy, I still don't understand how the literate ones could escape the prison: they would still be unable to provide the answer.
    – Zeus
    2 hours ago













up vote
4
down vote










up vote
4
down vote









Firstly, all laws passed by congress are done for public policy reasons. Therefore, for your hypothetical, assuming that Congress knew that it was impossible for some citizens to answer the question, there must be a public policy reason to make it impossible to comply. Perhaps they are trying to get rid of the mathematically illiterate? The thing is that impossible to follow laws have been passed and defended in court in the past. Below is a link to one such incident.



https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/29/californias-top-court-impossible-laws-no



There is nothing wrong with making impossible to follow laws. There are laws that get passed that make businesses go bankrupt because they cannot take the heat. The question is: are these impossible to follow laws constitutional? If they are then they stand in court. If they are not then they fall apart in court. I would argue that in the case of your hypothetical it would be unconstitutional. It would deprive the mathematically literate of rights granted to other citizens. It would also not be ADA (americans with disabilities act) compliant. Many disabled people are by nature of their disability mathematically illiterate. There are probably other reasons why it would be unconstitutional but nothing comes to mind.



EDIT: It has come to my attention that the equation is literally impossible to resolve. I suppose the article is less applicable as a result. However my point stands. Being impossible to follow changes nothing. All that matters is the intent behind the policy. In the hypo Congress intends to imprison everyone. I'm sure the courts would find that unconsitutional. On the other hand, suppose Congress were to pass a law saying "Peanuts are banned unless they were acquired from the core of the sun". That is impossible. Congress' intent would be to simply ban peanuts outright. Sounds pretty constitutional to me. Therefore it will stand in a court of law.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




S J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









Firstly, all laws passed by congress are done for public policy reasons. Therefore, for your hypothetical, assuming that Congress knew that it was impossible for some citizens to answer the question, there must be a public policy reason to make it impossible to comply. Perhaps they are trying to get rid of the mathematically illiterate? The thing is that impossible to follow laws have been passed and defended in court in the past. Below is a link to one such incident.



https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/29/californias-top-court-impossible-laws-no



There is nothing wrong with making impossible to follow laws. There are laws that get passed that make businesses go bankrupt because they cannot take the heat. The question is: are these impossible to follow laws constitutional? If they are then they stand in court. If they are not then they fall apart in court. I would argue that in the case of your hypothetical it would be unconstitutional. It would deprive the mathematically literate of rights granted to other citizens. It would also not be ADA (americans with disabilities act) compliant. Many disabled people are by nature of their disability mathematically illiterate. There are probably other reasons why it would be unconstitutional but nothing comes to mind.



EDIT: It has come to my attention that the equation is literally impossible to resolve. I suppose the article is less applicable as a result. However my point stands. Being impossible to follow changes nothing. All that matters is the intent behind the policy. In the hypo Congress intends to imprison everyone. I'm sure the courts would find that unconsitutional. On the other hand, suppose Congress were to pass a law saying "Peanuts are banned unless they were acquired from the core of the sun". That is impossible. Congress' intent would be to simply ban peanuts outright. Sounds pretty constitutional to me. Therefore it will stand in a court of law.







share|improve this answer










New contributor




S J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago





















New contributor




S J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 6 hours ago









S J

557




557




New contributor




S J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





S J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






S J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    "Nothing wrong"?? If so, something is wrong with the legislature, lawyers or the constitution, for that matter. Secondly, "mathematical literacy" has nothing to do here: compliance is impossible whether one is mathematically literate or not. The literate ones will just understand why.
    – Zeus
    2 hours ago










  • @Zeus An impossible to follow law could be very effective at carrying out a policy. That is why impossible to follow laws are perfectly fine. See the link above if you are not convinced. Furthermore, mathematical literacy is very relevant. If congress' laws are made with the intent of pursuing a policy then in OP'S hypo the only possible policy I can think of is imprisonment of the mathematically illiterate. The point is that the court is going to ask "is this policy constitutional?"
    – S J
    2 hours ago












  • That's a rather biased article trying to push a specific interpretation of "impossible" to make the laws sound more unreasonable than they are. "Impossible" is a very different thing from "we don't know how to do it yet", especially for laws that say "by the year 20xx, you'll have to be able to meet these requirements to do this thing" instead of "by the year right now, you must meet these requirements to do this thing".
    – user2357112
    2 hours ago












  • @user2357112 the same applies to OP's hypo. Most people can learn the answer to that equation. They just don't know how yet.
    – S J
    2 hours ago










  • I read the article, thanks for that. But the conclusion is rather the opposite: the lawyers/legislators may see it OK, but it doesn't automatically make it reasonable. And being unreasonable is exactly "wrong" in my book. With literacy, I still don't understand how the literate ones could escape the prison: they would still be unable to provide the answer.
    – Zeus
    2 hours ago














  • 1




    "Nothing wrong"?? If so, something is wrong with the legislature, lawyers or the constitution, for that matter. Secondly, "mathematical literacy" has nothing to do here: compliance is impossible whether one is mathematically literate or not. The literate ones will just understand why.
    – Zeus
    2 hours ago










  • @Zeus An impossible to follow law could be very effective at carrying out a policy. That is why impossible to follow laws are perfectly fine. See the link above if you are not convinced. Furthermore, mathematical literacy is very relevant. If congress' laws are made with the intent of pursuing a policy then in OP'S hypo the only possible policy I can think of is imprisonment of the mathematically illiterate. The point is that the court is going to ask "is this policy constitutional?"
    – S J
    2 hours ago












  • That's a rather biased article trying to push a specific interpretation of "impossible" to make the laws sound more unreasonable than they are. "Impossible" is a very different thing from "we don't know how to do it yet", especially for laws that say "by the year 20xx, you'll have to be able to meet these requirements to do this thing" instead of "by the year right now, you must meet these requirements to do this thing".
    – user2357112
    2 hours ago












  • @user2357112 the same applies to OP's hypo. Most people can learn the answer to that equation. They just don't know how yet.
    – S J
    2 hours ago










  • I read the article, thanks for that. But the conclusion is rather the opposite: the lawyers/legislators may see it OK, but it doesn't automatically make it reasonable. And being unreasonable is exactly "wrong" in my book. With literacy, I still don't understand how the literate ones could escape the prison: they would still be unable to provide the answer.
    – Zeus
    2 hours ago








1




1




"Nothing wrong"?? If so, something is wrong with the legislature, lawyers or the constitution, for that matter. Secondly, "mathematical literacy" has nothing to do here: compliance is impossible whether one is mathematically literate or not. The literate ones will just understand why.
– Zeus
2 hours ago




"Nothing wrong"?? If so, something is wrong with the legislature, lawyers or the constitution, for that matter. Secondly, "mathematical literacy" has nothing to do here: compliance is impossible whether one is mathematically literate or not. The literate ones will just understand why.
– Zeus
2 hours ago












@Zeus An impossible to follow law could be very effective at carrying out a policy. That is why impossible to follow laws are perfectly fine. See the link above if you are not convinced. Furthermore, mathematical literacy is very relevant. If congress' laws are made with the intent of pursuing a policy then in OP'S hypo the only possible policy I can think of is imprisonment of the mathematically illiterate. The point is that the court is going to ask "is this policy constitutional?"
– S J
2 hours ago






@Zeus An impossible to follow law could be very effective at carrying out a policy. That is why impossible to follow laws are perfectly fine. See the link above if you are not convinced. Furthermore, mathematical literacy is very relevant. If congress' laws are made with the intent of pursuing a policy then in OP'S hypo the only possible policy I can think of is imprisonment of the mathematically illiterate. The point is that the court is going to ask "is this policy constitutional?"
– S J
2 hours ago














That's a rather biased article trying to push a specific interpretation of "impossible" to make the laws sound more unreasonable than they are. "Impossible" is a very different thing from "we don't know how to do it yet", especially for laws that say "by the year 20xx, you'll have to be able to meet these requirements to do this thing" instead of "by the year right now, you must meet these requirements to do this thing".
– user2357112
2 hours ago






That's a rather biased article trying to push a specific interpretation of "impossible" to make the laws sound more unreasonable than they are. "Impossible" is a very different thing from "we don't know how to do it yet", especially for laws that say "by the year 20xx, you'll have to be able to meet these requirements to do this thing" instead of "by the year right now, you must meet these requirements to do this thing".
– user2357112
2 hours ago














@user2357112 the same applies to OP's hypo. Most people can learn the answer to that equation. They just don't know how yet.
– S J
2 hours ago




@user2357112 the same applies to OP's hypo. Most people can learn the answer to that equation. They just don't know how yet.
– S J
2 hours ago












I read the article, thanks for that. But the conclusion is rather the opposite: the lawyers/legislators may see it OK, but it doesn't automatically make it reasonable. And being unreasonable is exactly "wrong" in my book. With literacy, I still don't understand how the literate ones could escape the prison: they would still be unable to provide the answer.
– Zeus
2 hours ago




I read the article, thanks for that. But the conclusion is rather the opposite: the lawyers/legislators may see it OK, but it doesn't automatically make it reasonable. And being unreasonable is exactly "wrong" in my book. With literacy, I still don't understand how the literate ones could escape the prison: they would still be unable to provide the answer.
– Zeus
2 hours ago










Anon is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















Anon is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













Anon is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Anon is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34260%2fwhat-if-a-law-is-literally-impossible-to-follow%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

A CLEAN and SIMPLE way to add appendices to Table of Contents and bookmarks

Calculate evaluation metrics using cross_val_predict sklearn

Insert data from modal to MySQL (multiple modal on website)