Right, but laws are a framework, they are build on top of one another. Just as a random example: what if you have a law that requires a government ID in order to say, take out a home loan. Then for whatever reason gridlock or something has the law that permits the creation of government ID's lapse, so no one can get them anymore. What do you do about the other laws that require government ids? It would be a progressive collapse.
I know that idea is really unlikely, but it's just to illustrate a point. I don't think building laws on quicksand is a good idea.
Granted, but I think that was JTsyo's point in reverse. These laws build up as new laws are passed, but the old laws that may be in conflict are also still in force. Now you have one law that says you must do X, another law that says you must do Y, and maybe a third law that says you cannot do X and Y together. For example, the ADA says that fire alarm visual notification devices must be mounted at 80" to top of strobe light; that's a federal law. The NFPA and IBFC say that strobes must be mounted 80" to 96", whether to the center or to the top isn't referenced. Those are laws adopted at the state and local level. And the ADA addresses strobes only in sleeping areas, which by exclusion means to meet the federal law one cannot use ceiling-mounted strobes except in sleeping rooms. Now, with wall-mounted strobes one cannot legally provide visual notification (required wherever the visually handicapped are accommodated, which is almost all public spaces) for any room larger than 185' by 185' even with 185 candela strobes. Now, I've actually spoken with a couple of people who wrote that portion of the ADA and have been assured that their intent was not to ban ceiling-mounted fire alarm strobes except in sleeping rooms, but that's what they did. And because Congress is always looking at the next big bill, in almost twenty years they have not gotten around to fixing it. Many, many laws are like that, either internally inconsistent, producing bad unintentional consequences, or in conflict with later laws.
Because laws are never reviewed, these kinds of things never get properly fixed. Instead we have a patchwork of different interpretations in different jurisdictions. A large and/or powerful entity, be it corporation, government, union, or just wealthy individual, can game these gaps, bringing up an issue within a certain jurisdiction to get a different and more favorable legal result than would be obtained in another jurisdiction. This can be a corporation establishing legal precedent for a desired action, or it can be government, using one law to convict someone or remove his property when he was perfectly in compliance with another law. That's why I think laws need to be periodically reviewed.
I also think new laws should immediately go before an appeals court for a review of constitutionality, but that's a separate issue.