Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 14 2020 12:18am)
Something being unwritten, or more specifically not written into the law explicitly, does not mean it's vague.
For instance, it's all but certain that the supreme court would strike down a president attempting to pardon himself even though it's not written into the constitution that he cannot.The reason is because a fundamental tenant of western law is that a man cannot be his own judge and jury. This doesn't have to be written into the constitution because it was understood as a fundamental and obvious feature of law at the time the constitution was authored. There simply isn't a need to add a caveat into every single contract, law, and constitution because these things are well understood by anybody who reads them. They are often made explicit to outline the punishments or remedy for specific offenses, but they are fundamental nonetheless.
That's not clear at all. An attempt by the president to pardon himself would provoke a constitutional crisis. The president's pardon power is enumerated clearly in the Constitution, and there are diverse array of legal thought one way or the other.
It is disingenuous to say that "these things are well understood by anybody who reads them", because they are not. Split decisions (e.g. Roe v Wade) make it clear that these questions are not clear even to those most qualified to share their opinion. Contorting the law in an extended display of sophistry, even with good intent, does damage to both the integrity of the Courts and the law.
To circle back to the original case, the majority opinion concluded that the law is vague and precedent dictates that the agency's interpretation of the statute should therefore be respected (
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-9504.pdf), and not some argument about what a "reasonable person" would do or "fundamental laws" that are so important that we happened to forget to make them Constitutionally protected.