[PeterAlan]

barmar, on 2018-October-02, 09:12, said:

If the lawmakers want to prevent this approach, the solution is to writer clearer laws without inconsistencies, so TDs can't cherry-pick the law that supports their ruling.

sanst, on 2018-October-09, 01:20, said:

That’s impossible. It’s impossible for a formal axiomatic system, as shown by Gödel, ...

At risk of being overly technical, it's not as simple as that (Gödel's argument requires that the system is sufficient to contain Peano arithmetic, for example). And you can have a consistent such system - for example, ZFC (Zermelo-Frankel set theory with the Axiom of Choice) is generally regarded as consistent - it's just that in that event (1) it will be incomplete (there will be true statements that can not be proved within the system), and (2) its consistency is one such statement: ie you can not prove the system's consistency within the system.

Mathematics would be impossible if all systems were inconsistent.

sanst, on 2018-October-09, 01:20, said:

... so it’s certainly impossible for a semi-formal, non-axiomatic system like the Laws of Du[p]licate Bridge or any other set of laws.

That is certainly not a logical consequence even if the premise were true.

[blackshoe]

sanst, on 2018-October-09, 01:20, said:

That’s impossible. It’s impossible for a formal axiomatic system, as shown by Gödel, so it’s certainly impossible for a semi-formal, non-axiomatic system like the Laws of Dulicate Bridge or any other set of laws. US states have sovereignty, but can’t declare themselves independent. A very bloody Civil War was fought to make that clear.

Had Mr. Lincoln not seriously exceeded his Constitutional authority, there might not have been "a very bloody Civil War".

[barmar]

BTW, some people have in the past suggested that a problem with the Laws is that they're too long and complex, and could do with a simplification. A recent question on politics.stackexchange.com asked why the Supreme Court of the US is so partisan compared to other countries, and one of the most popular answers said that it's because our Constitution is so much shorter and simpler than other modern democracies' -- it just states general principles (like "due process" and "equal protection"), but leaves many of the details to interpretation; as a result, we have the perennial tug of war between progressives who want to interpret it in light of modern values, and conservatives who want to retain traditional values and interpret it as defining them.

Similarly, a simplification of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge would almost certainly allow even more interpretation that varies from one TD or RA to the next. Take your choice: simple laws that are less complete, or complex laws that are likely to have inconsistencies (because it's hard to avoid them).