Michael Malice’s excellent anthology, The Anarchist’s Handbook, includes an essay by John Hasnas, a professor of law and business at Georgetown.

He opens his essay with a simple quiz:

On the basis of your personal understanding of the meaning of this sentence (not your knowledge of Constitutional law), please indicate whether you believe the following sentences to be true or false.

1. In time of war, a federal statute may be passed prohibiting citizens from revealing military secrets to the enemy.
2. The President can issue an executive order prohibiting public criticism of his administration.
3. Congress may pass a law prohibiting museums from exhibiting photographs and paintings depicting homosexual activity.
4. A federal statute can be passed prohibiting a citizen from falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.
5. Congress may pass a law prohibiting dancing to rock and roll music
6. The Internal Revenue Service may issue a regulation prohibiting the publication of a book explaining how to cheat on your taxes and get away with it.
7. Congress may pass a statute prohibiting flag burning.

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/john-hasnas/

Hasnas successfully argues that human law (versus the laws of nature) are necessarily ambiguous and subject to interpretation, which interpretations will not only be biased by the values and prejudices of the interpreter but almost wholly determined by them.

I will display the correct answers in 24 hours or whenever @siggy47 reminds me