re: #341 reine.de.tout

According to the logic that we should stick with the laws we always had and not change anything, we would not have laws regulating automobile traffic, because there was no need for them in the past (there being no cars).

That person is making no sense.

I think when that writer says “laws” they mean the Constitution. If so, the point becomes more comprehensible, but it still has a number of logic holes (the 27 Amendments to the Constitution being the greatest of those holes).