No. It's fucking horrible reading. If you want a lesson in piss-poor legal drafting, you could hardly pick a better document. Take the infamous second amendment as an example. It was drafted so badly that half this country thinks the first 13 out of 27 words --nearly half the amendment-- are utterly meaningless and without legal effect.... the rhetorical equivalent of clearing one's throat. If you wanted to draft something that would clearly be understood at relating only to militias, you'd draft it one way; if you wanted to draft something that would clearly be understood as an individual right, without regard to militia membership, you'd draft it another. They went for something in the middle and ended up with nothing but legal ambiguity. Meanwhile, they drafted it in the passive voice, so it's not even clear who, exactly, is being prohibited from infringing. Just the federal government? The federal government and the states? Local government, too? Private individuals? The first amendment is arguably even worse, since it, by its wording, only restricts Congress, and so would allow, say, executive orders, executive-agency regulations, state and local governments, courts, and anyone else to restrict those rights. It's really amateurish stuff.
We conduct these "experiments" all the time -- they're just not scientifically rigorous or controlled.... which is actually far more like Mengele. It's pseudo-science driven by ideology, just like him, rather than an open-minded attempt to discover the truth.
Why?
No worries. Such laziness is commonplace these days.
