I think this one's officially a dead horse for us. But I did want to point out that even if a legislator did not envision a given interpretation of the law when they drafted it, doesn't mean that interpretation is actually illegal.
That type of concern (having to fix laws with unanticipated loopholes) as probably as old as the Code of Hammurabi. That's where the legislator can say, "I didn't mean for that to be legal", but it doesn't automatically follow that means the thing is illegal. That's for the courts to decide.
On that note, hopefully we'll have an answer soon about what that secret FISC ruling was in the first place.
That type of concern (having to fix laws with unanticipated loopholes) as probably as old as the Code of Hammurabi. That's where the legislator can say, "I didn't mean for that to be legal", but it doesn't automatically follow that means the thing is illegal. That's for the courts to decide.
On that note, hopefully we'll have an answer soon about what that secret FISC ruling was in the first place.