| I have a lot of sympathy and affection for this project. When I started working in the US Congress in 2009, I was shocked there wasn't a more concerted effort to put US code in some kind of version control system. Over time (~15 years in law and public policy in US and EU) I've come to view that kind of project as something worthwhile, and interesting, but not something that will meaningfully change how laws are created and understood.
In the US, as a mixed but substantially common law system, the text of the US Code, which in the LawVM model is the tree, can remain fixed, but the interpretation of that text will still vary over time. (Same syntax, different semantics, which feels like an AI-ism as I write it.) A couple examples: I have worked in competition policy. Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act has read the same since 1890 but it's operated across structuralist and consumer-welfare regimes, and the outcomes in Standard Oil, AT&T, MSFT, and more recent cases have all been shaped by those regimes. US constitutional law may be an even better example of the issue: Article I, sec. 8, cl. 3 (the commerce clause) has not been amended since 1789, but it has expanded and contracted and been reinterpreted over time (most recently with NFIB v Sebelius). Another example of the problem with a LawVM like system making "the law in force [...] knowable" is US overturning of Chevron deference on 28 June 2024. Basically, the day before, courts were expected to defer to expert agencies, constrained by the Administrative Procedures Act, in their interpretation of legislation. The day after, courts were expected to make an independent assessment. All sorts of legislative texts were unchanged, but their meaning shifted dramatically: Clean Air Act, Communications Act, etc. There are a bunch of other issues in figuring out "what the law is", like agency rulemakings in the CFR, and then instruments which sit below those, including sub-regulatory guidance, prosecutorial discretion, etc.
Things which fall into this bucket: - DOJ pot enforcement - SEC no-action letters (letters which say in effect "we won't try to enforce if you do X") Altogether, my thinking of this shifted to believing that the real thing that needs to be modeled is not the US Code as a tree serialization format, but the interpretative algorithm (the things lawyers and courts do) that translates that serialized tree into decisions. That interpretive algorithm has a lot of inputs, one which is the serialized tree, but also a bunch of other stuff. As a final note, I will add that the ambiguity in legislative text is often a feature, not a bug. I have worked on legislative text that was intentionally crafted to provide different plausible interpretations to different coalition members both in the immediate context and in the long term. In summary: projects like this are good and admirable; they're likely to have more direct utility in jurisdictions on one extreme of the civil law spectrum (i.e. not the US); and in all jurisdictions there likely needs to be an interpretive mechanism that sits above the representation of legal text which has more inputs if the goal is to model what the law is at any given time. |