Declaring the law void for vagueness would not favor Kalshi. It would undercut the federal preemption that Kalshi is advocating for.

▲

jmalicki 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Since when has vagueness been considered a bad thing for statutes? It's the foundation of the US (and anglo) legal system and why courts exist, to fill in. And vague statutes that can be interpreted by courts has long been preferred to precise legislated meaning that you seem to prefer.

You could live in Germany or France if you prefer a legal system more ruled by clear statute?

▲

delichon 3 hours ago | parent [-]

If vagueness isn't a problem then we can simplify the law by replacing it all with one sentence: Let there be justice.

	▲	jmalicki an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The idea is to provide overarching guidance, but when there is devil in the details, leave that up to courts to consider when there is a real actual issue at play, rather than legislators in the ivory tower theorizing about how things might play out. The statute gives the general intent, but with an understanding that until the shit hits the fan in an actual court case, noone will have truly considered the detailed ramifications, so leave some intentional ambiguity there for the courts to resolve on real, actual, grounded cases rather than theorizing. And if the legislature disagrees with a courts opinion about the ambiguity it left, it is very free to clarify in statute, which will override the court! (Unless the issue is constitutional, in which case the legislature is very free to draft a constitutional amendment!)