I'm the person who originally posed this question, and I actually am a (former) lawyer. I think these are all good analogies, and courts would think about things like this.
But neither the laws nor the judges will be uniform. The laws use different words to say slightly different things, and will have different legislative histories (the record from the officials who voted them into law).
Some judges will look to the actual words to interpret the law, and others will look to the legislative history. Still others might desire a "living Constitution" approach — applying the laws in a way that they think makes sense in today's world.
Considering the dozens of laws and thousands of judges that could opine, there will likely be considerable uncertainty in this area for years to come.
But neither the laws nor the judges will be uniform. The laws use different words to say slightly different things, and will have different legislative histories (the record from the officials who voted them into law).
Some judges will look to the actual words to interpret the law, and others will look to the legislative history. Still others might desire a "living Constitution" approach — applying the laws in a way that they think makes sense in today's world.
Considering the dozens of laws and thousands of judges that could opine, there will likely be considerable uncertainty in this area for years to come.