Having experienced a robust debate discussion regarding if these two laws should be flexible, it is time to shift gears a bit and consider the broader implications of changing laws from an ethical and philosophical perspective. Read http://www.goodgovernment.org/laws-should-not-constantly-change/ to frame this week’s discussion. Complete the following: What is your initial perspective after reading the article? Based on your review of the article, is there an ethical/philosophical consideration that supports/ challenges the articles considerations? Part 2 Provide an argument ‘AGAINST’ there being an ethical/philosophical reasoning for changing laws. Notes: While considering the implications of changing laws from an ethical and philosophical perspective, keep in mind that the most important function of the legislative branch, whether at the federal or state level, is to create and/or abolish laws. Because the government is created by the people to protect their liberty, the purpose of laws must be to defend the rights of the people. Therefore, laws should be written in a manner that makes them accessible to everyone or at the least as many people as possible. In your professional life, you can apply these principles by taking into consideration whether the rules and codes at your company are clear, simple, and ethical. The modern trend is to create laws that are unnecessarily long and nearly incomprehensible. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act, which you reviewed for your prior discussion board, checks in at over 2300 pages. The Declaration of Independence, one of the most important documents in our nations history, was only 1,337 words long. The lesson to be learned is succinctly stated by the Declarations author, Thomas Jefferson, who said, The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.