Oldy but goody

Which of the following legally-binding statements is easier to understand?

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press."

or

"Conditions Based on Health Status Factor.-If any of the conditions for obtaining a premium discount or rebate or other reward for participation in a wellness program is based on an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health status factor, such wellness program shall not violate this section if the requirements of paragraph (3) are complied with."

The first statement is from the Constitution, specifically the first amendment. It was transmitted to the states by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified effective December 15, 1791, nearly 2 years and 3 months later. The people and their elected representatives had plenty of time to understand this new law.

The second statement is from Part 1, Subpart 1, Section 2705(j)(1)(C) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or H.R. 3590. It was introduced in the House on September 17, 2009, passed in the House on October 8, 2009, passed in the Senate on December 24, 2009 and signed into law on March 23, 2010, slightly over 6 months later. The people and their elected representatives had little time to understand this new law.

While the latter statement is not impossible to understand, new terms are introduced such as wellness program and health status factor. Where are these terms defined? Does the definition change with the times or at the secretary's discretion? What are the requirements of paragraph (3)? Given enough time and some legal aid, I could understand what the latter means to me, my neighbor, the insurance industry and/or my state, but I immediately understand the plain language of the former.

According to Washington Post's Ezra Klein, however, "nobody understands what it (Constitution) means because it's over 100 years old". What does age have to do with it? Is he not implying that because of its age it no longer has any applicability to modern society? I contend that no matter when it was written the Constitution, along with its amendments, the most recent of which was ratified on May 7, 1992, is still a modern document because we the people can change it whenever we so desire. We even added one banning booze in 1919 then repealed it nearly 15 years later. It is not up to the courts to modernize it at their whim; it is up to us. If we take no action to change it, then we believe it still applies to modern society.

Yes. The oldest part of the Constitution was written over 223 years ago, but it's not the age of the law that matters; it's how many lawyers you need to understand it. The 200+ companies getting waivers from certain sections of H.R 3590 are the ones big enough to have lawyers dedicated to understanding those sections affecting them. Small businesses, and individuals, without a legion of lawyers will find out the hard way. The beauty of the Constitution is that it was written in such a way that the common person can understand it all by him or herself.