As a one-time banking lawyer, I mostly agree with you for regulations, but not statutes. Regulators and legislators are different beasts. Regulators are trying to make policy via consensus; legislators are trying to get reelected via majority rule. Furthermore, legislation is much stickier than regulation, especially in the US with its multiplicity of veto points. Much of the language in the National Banking Act traces back to 1838, although this is admittedly an extreme example. Federal banking legislation (at least in the US) therefore contains all kinds of strange warts and goiters. Various constituents get toked notwithstanding the sense of the statute, and weird old statutory language persists because nobody bothered to get rid of it.
Although God's "The Bible" is already generally acknowledged to be the work of multiple contending factions (especially the notorious "Gospels" section of part two) and that isn't even taking into account the copious evidence of numerous editors who were clearly arguing with each other, let alone with authors that we no longer have the evidence for (thanks to effective document destruction.) [Disclaimer: I write this as a practising Christian. But probably the sort of Christian that would be burned for heresy not that long ago, just for saying this.]
But yeah, this is an important thing to remember when reading documents like this. Thank you for a most excellent summary.
As a one-time banking lawyer, I mostly agree with you for regulations, but not statutes. Regulators and legislators are different beasts. Regulators are trying to make policy via consensus; legislators are trying to get reelected via majority rule. Furthermore, legislation is much stickier than regulation, especially in the US with its multiplicity of veto points. Much of the language in the National Banking Act traces back to 1838, although this is admittedly an extreme example. Federal banking legislation (at least in the US) therefore contains all kinds of strange warts and goiters. Various constituents get toked notwithstanding the sense of the statute, and weird old statutory language persists because nobody bothered to get rid of it.
Although God's "The Bible" is already generally acknowledged to be the work of multiple contending factions (especially the notorious "Gospels" section of part two) and that isn't even taking into account the copious evidence of numerous editors who were clearly arguing with each other, let alone with authors that we no longer have the evidence for (thanks to effective document destruction.) [Disclaimer: I write this as a practising Christian. But probably the sort of Christian that would be burned for heresy not that long ago, just for saying this.]
But yeah, this is an important thing to remember when reading documents like this. Thank you for a most excellent summary.
I’m gonna quote you to my hs English students.