[High quality] welcome hope you brought red wine and catnip doormat

indeed, federal cases on election law strongly suggest that the states are constitutionally welcome hope you brought red wine and catnip doormat empowered to regulate such matters as the terms of federal officeholders.

welcome hope you brought red wine and catnip doormat

and about the links between those things. It is an initiative that I hope will engage government departments, drafters, the policy profession, parliamentarians, the judiciary – and, welcome hope you brought red wine and catnip doormat  crucially, the users of legislation. Last year I commissioned a review of the causes of complexity in legislation. This is the report. It suggests that there is no single cause of complexity, but many. That is perhaps not surprising. But for me, a striking theme of this report is that while there are many reasons for adding complexity, there is no compelling incentive to create simplicity or to avoid making an intricate web of laws even more complex. That is something I think we must reflect upon. Should we be concerned about any of this?

After all, modern life in a developed country like the UK is complicated, and we use the law to govern many aspects of it. So it is not surprising that statutes and their subordinate regulations are complex; and it is perhaps reasonable to assume that citizens will need help or guidance in understanding the raw material of law. That experience echoes observations that have been made about statute law for many years. The volume of legislation, its piecemeal structure, its level of detail and frequent amendments, and the interaction with common law and European law, mean that even professional users can find law complex, hard to understand and difficult to comply with. You’ve accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Many arguments against term limits, on the other hand, are either mistaken or irrelevant . Although many opponents claim that term limits are plainly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court’s recent acceptance of the Arkansas case undercuts their argument;