Electricians vs. lawyers

[G._S._Ohm]

Laws are written vaguely and this is necessary to limit the total number of laws.
Lawyers depend on caselaw, which is sometimes contradictory, to decide the literal meaning of a law for the case in front of them at the moment.
Bad laws occasionally get repealed.

The NEC is written very densely and abstractly, in places.
Electricians have to interpret the literal meaning of the rules for the installation in front of them at the moment.

Is there a parallel for caselaw for electricians?

What does it take to get a "bad" rule deleted from the NEC?

Do "good" rules occasionally get deleted from the NEC, by accident or on purpose?


Thanks for whatever comments you can provide me.

 

[iwire]

The NEC is changed every 3 years, anyone can put in a proposal with a suggestion to make a change or add a new rule.

I have to run now, others will fill in.

 

[480sparky]

...............Do good rules occasionally get deleted, by accident or on purpose?.......

300.18(A), which requires a raceway to be complete before installation of conductors, has disappeared twice in the history of the NEC.... from 1930 through 1943, and again in the 1984 and 1987 editions.

 

[G._S._Ohm]

300.18(A), . . .has disappeared twice in the history of the NEC.... from 1930 through 1943, and again in the 1984 and 1987 editions.

So then what is "right?"
Can they define what is "right" if they put enough conditional statements on the rule?

 

[iwire]

Here is the process straight from the NFPA

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.as...des and standards are developed&cookie_test=1

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

NEC is nothing short of money making business. They are not about to let the next issue out without several changes. They make money selling what you are forced into buying. It walks a fine line on being legal. Will give them credit that when changes are needed they get made but takes years to get it changed.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Lawyers and judges also use legislative history to help sort out what a law means. That is available in the ROPs (report on proposals) and the ROCs (report on comments) for the rules in the NEC.

 

[hillbilly1]

300.18(A), which requires a raceway to be complete before installation of conductors, has disappeared twice in the history of the NEC.... from 1930 through 1943, and again in the 1984 and 1987 editions.

I know of a competitor that would pull romex in as he assembled the conduit run, so you could say was installing the conductors before the raceway was complete! Romex doesn't pull well in 1/2" EMT.

 

[480sparky]

So then what is "right?"
Can they define what is "right" if they put enough conditional statements on the rule?

'Right' depends on which edition of the NEC you're bound by.

 

[steve66]

Laws are written vaguely and this is necessary to limit the total number of laws.

I don't agree with this statement. Most laws are very specific.

There are some laws that get passed that are more general, but this is usually the exception. And every time someone gets charged with one of these laws, the procecutors have to defend the entire law, and try to show its not too vague to apply to their specific case.

Yes, case law is used to provide specific examples, and to

 

[mikeames]

I don't agree with this statement. Most laws are very specific.

I dont fully agree with yours. Although many laws are specific, ie: red trafic lights, one could argue just as many laws are not specific. Thus the reason for a 12 person jurry. Unfortunatly many laws are interperted many different ways.

In any even I know we dont debate much here on this forum........ :grin:

 

[steve66]

I dont fully agree with yours. Although many laws are specific, ie: red trafic lights, one could argue just as many laws are not specific. Thus the reason for a 12 person jurry. Unfortunatly many laws are interperted many different ways.

In any even I know we dont debate much here on this forum........ :grin:

I will agree that a few laws are very general. However, I think the vast majority are very specific. But my main point is that lawmakers and politicians and lawyers all try very hard, and put a lot of time and effort into making laws very specific, and not leaving any room for different inteperations or opinions.

One big exception that you guys might be thinking of is the Bill or Rights, and things like the "right of free speech". But I don't think those are laws: they are more general ideas that lawmakers are supposed to consider when they are writting other specific laws.

But as we all know from discussing the NEC, even when you write something that seems very specific, something that doesn't seem to leave any room for debate, others will find a way to read something else into it in a way you never considered. So even though laws are intended to be very specific, people will always find loopholes and other holes in the language or wording of the laws.

Regarding the jury, most of the time their role is limited to deciding if a person committed a particular crime or not. I don't think a jury normally has too much leeway in how they interpert laws.

 

[pfalcon]

I will agree that a few laws are very general. However, I think the vast majority are very specific. But my main point is that lawmakers and politicians and lawyers all try very hard, and put a lot of time and effort into making laws very specific, and not leaving any room for different inteperations or opinions.

You need to spend more time looking at the actual laws before making such a statement. They typically address the pressing desire of a specific group and are poorly checked for errors. Numerous amendments are made afterward as they discover all the loopholes. The NEC encourages their proposals to be publicly viewed and commented before release. And they still get errors.

One big exception that you guys might be thinking of is the Bill or Rights, and things like the "right of free speech". But I don't think those are laws: they are more general ideas that lawmakers are supposed to consider when they are writting other specific laws.

There is a modern trend toward being specific. Not just the Bill of Rights but most older laws are much simpler in form. See following comments.

But as we all know from discussing the NEC, even when you write something that seems very specific, something that doesn't seem to leave any room for debate, others will find a way to read something else into it in a way you never considered. So even though laws are intended to be very specific, people will always find loopholes and other holes in the language or wording of the laws.

Again, this is a modern trend to be specific.

Regarding the jury, most of the time their role is limited to deciding if a person committed a particular crime or not. I don't think a jury normally has too much leeway in how they interpert laws.

And this is where the older laws were more general and encompassing. The Jury is the people's power to fix the law. Most states include in their constitution that the jury is to judge the law as a part of the trial process. Today we hide that power from the jury. Check your own state constitution and you'll most likely find it.

 

[dbuckley]

The big difference between 'law' and the NEC is that caselaw refines the understanding of a law, and is commulative, and once an element of law has been decided by trial history, other judges at the same level generally cannot change an interpretation.

On the other hand, the AHJ in relation to the NEC makes a decision on a case by case basis, and one AHJs (or even one inspector's) decision isn't binding on another. The NEC doesn't get 'refined' by the decision history.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I will agree that a few laws are very general. However, I think the vast majority are very specific. But my main point is that lawmakers and politicians and lawyers all try very hard, and put a lot of time and effort into making laws very specific, and not leaving any room for different inteperations or opinions.

One big exception that you guys might be thinking of is the Bill or Rights, and things like the "right of free speech". But I don't think those are laws: they are more general ideas that lawmakers are supposed to consider when they are writting other specific laws.

But as we all know from discussing the NEC, even when you write something that seems very specific, something that doesn't seem to leave any room for debate, others will find a way to read something else into it in a way you never considered. So even though laws are intended to be very specific, people will always find loopholes and other holes in the language or wording of the laws.

Regarding the jury, most of the time their role is limited to deciding if a person committed a particular crime or not. I don't think a jury normally has too much leeway in how they interpert laws.

Remember that most laws need to be inerpretated, that's why we have judges. While you have the "right of free speech" it is still illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Many people are mistaken when they think that you have a 5 mph grace over the speed limit. The number posted is the speed limit, it is up to the police office to grant or not grant a grace. 1 mph over is still speeding.

"No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing." This is from Wyomings vehicle code. Do you want to guess who get's to decide what is "reasonable and prudent"?


Think of the code as a law, which it becomes once it is adopted by a jurisdiction. Lawmakers=NFPA, lawyers=inspectors and judges=building officials.

I was told once that the NEC is written in "legaleze" and to a mid college reading level. The average reading level in the US is 8th grade.

 

[hillbilly1]

I have already found an error in 70e that could be a serious mistake for an unqualified person, it has to do with working clearances from high voltage lines, it was an honest mistake on the NFPA's part, as inches were supposed to be feet, but it was too late for them to change it.

 

[steve66]

You need to spend more time looking at the actual laws before making such a statement.

So you have some references to cite for your claim that this is all a modern trend??
What I have said is simply my opinion, and I don't mind at all if others disagree.

They typically address the pressing desire of a specific group and are poorly checked for errors. Numerous amendments are made afterward as they discover all the loopholes. The NEC encourages their proposals to be publicly viewed and commented before release. And they still get errors.

I won't disagree with that - all the admendments and changes and error are largely a result of trying to be so specific to start with.

A quick google of federal laws turns up Chapter 11 just to use as an example;


A few volumes of Title 11 (Bankruptcy) of the United States Code Annotated (U.S.C.A.) at a law library.


I'd say if it a law takes that paper, it must be pretty specific.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that laws need to be interperted, or that we need previous interpertations, and all that. And I'm not arguing that the NEC wouldn't benefit from the same thing.

In fact, I think its the very fact that the laws try to be so specific that they throw out common sense that makes all the intperpertations necessary.

 

[mbeatty]

The big difference between 'law' and the NEC is that caselaw refines the understanding of a law, and is commulative, and once an element of law has been decided by trial history, other judges at the same level generally cannot change an interpretation.

On the other hand, the AHJ in relation to the NEC makes a decision on a case by case basis, and one AHJs (or even one inspector's) decision isn't binding on another. The NEC doesn't get 'refined' by the decision history.

I couldn't agree more, but I'll try.

 

[dbuckley]

Just one quick look at the powerbridge thread adds weight to this argument

 

[cadpoint]

The NEC is changed every 3 years, anyone can put in a proposal with a suggestion to make a change or add a new rule.

I have to run now, others will fill in.

Lawyers and judges also use legislative history to help sort out what a law means. That is available in the ROPs (report on proposals) and the ROCs (report on comments) for the rules in the NEC.

While I'll agree with both statements I also want to add that if a proposed change is not in the NFPA's "style format" it will also get rejected.