That's part of the problem with having so many laws written in lawyer speak. They are intentionally difficult to understand, so when someone the current leaders like is breaking them, they're interpreted to be weaker, and when someone they don't is, they get the book thrown at them.

That's the problem with reinterpreting the laws we have instead of trying to actually change them.

Consider the US Constitution. It has been considering a "living document" in spite of the fact that there is a well documented path to adding new laws and changing or removing existing laws.

However, we have allowed the bureaucracy to j trude and decide that. No, this particular law actually means this now, when historically it meant the total opposite.

Again, speaking from the point of view of an American, because I know my own government best, why do we have so many new federal departments, despite not one of them being listed in the Constitution? Because some judge decided that the clause "Provide for the general welfare" could be reinterpreted to mean "provide for every single citizen inside the nation's borders." rather than for the nation as a whole.

Those same people would have had absolutely no power to add those departments the correct way, using the Amendment process.

Look at how we handled Prohibition in the early 1900s, we required a Constitutional amendment to ban it and then again to undo said ban.

Now, however, some random bureaucracy can decide what people can or can't put inside their own bodies...

Why? Because some idiot decided to just reinterpret the Constitution.