But how could you write the laws in the first place? You can't write them in a language designed to be unambiguous, because they are meant to be imprecise.
There will be some ambiguity introduced via the English language (not a problem since you'd still have judges), but the whole thing can be defined, from concepts like true/false all the way to very complicated concepts, in the same universal syntax/language.
You could define mins and maxes into the language, or even clearly and unambiguously leave everything up to the judge.
My proposal does not change the laws at all--what people create is up to them. All I propose is a language where the language itself cannot be used by the special interests against the better interests of the people. My language leaves corruption with no place to hide.
I should rephrase as well. The language I am proposing offers much stronger control over ambiguity.
Take the 8th amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
What is an "excessive fine" mean? In the language I am proposing it could be defined as is, or in something like:
... cellType dollarAmount number cellType fine dollarAmount cellType adjustedGrossIncome dollarAmount cellType universalExcessiveFineThreshold description As a percentage of adjustedGrossIncome constant .1 nodeType isExcessiveFine cells adjustedGrossIncome fine trueIf fine / adjustedGrossIncome > universalExcessiveFineThreshold ...
So you have more control over ambiguity.
I said exactly the opposite: "not eliminate it"
> Most of the law is the tradition of judicial interpretation of those statutes.
This is a very good point. You could simply have judges write decisions in a decision language as well, which is defined just as the law language is defined.