when in conflict, the letter of the law ought to take priority over the spirit of the law.

Though I like to think I can debate well I don't have the advantage of experience in formal debates and I am new to this site so I appreciate the opportunity to participate. I shall be arguing in favour of the motion that "when in conflict, the letter of the law ought to take priority over the spirit of the law". When speaking of laws, it must be realised most countries laws are proposed, discussed, proof read and passed by people who are highly intelligent and/or educated and who have access to advisors who are also highly intelligent and/or educated to address a specific problem or issue faced by society. Such collective expertise is more than capable of creating laws that worded to accurately reflect the ‘spirit' of the law. Therefore I maintain that such conflicts between the letter and spirit of the law are often simply a conflict between the intention of the law and the agenda of an individual or group who disagrees with that law. In which case it is not appropriate for such pressure groups to appeal to the ‘spirit' of the law, but rather to appeal to the Legislative for an amendment, repeal or a new law. The stated intent of the legislative should be the source of law, not the ‘subjective' interpretation of it's meaning. In the event that a law has been poorly drafted and a conflict occurs, the legislative remains the best body to appeal to in the hopes of an amendment, repeal or a new law. If the right of the legislative to settle such disputes is ignored or sidelined in favour of a decision in favour of the perceived spirit of the law then that takes away the power of the Legislative to make laws, and passes it to the hands of those who are meant to observe, enforce and administer the law. This has potentially dangerous consequences for government, order and civil liberties. In the instance of a liberal democracy, government and law derives it's legitimacy from the democratic mandate. It can be argued that whereas Parliament or Congress (or similar body) has the mandate to create laws, the courts are only authorised to observe, employ and enforce the laws. By allowing for such bodies to apply what they perceive to the spirit of law permits them to effectively create the law, which is a violation of the democratic mandate. Certain laws concern controversial areas, the countries legislative is best equipped to wade through controversy. By allowing the perceived spirit of a law to be followed instead of its letter leaves members of the Judiciary or the law enforcement vulnerable to politicization and lobbying and enables them to change the law in the favour of a particular group without recourse to the legislative. A possible example of this is the ongoing ‘softening' of the law on assisted suicide in the UK. The euthanasia debate has not yet been resolved by Parliament but is falling to the Judiciary to settle. Though this is legal, it is a violation of the sovereignty of parliament, and the democratic spirit of the UK. The gradual process of legislation by precedent is also a threat to civil liberties, potentially leaving the seriously ill, disabled or elderly open to pressure to end their lives. I therefore maintain that in the interests of the law, it's spirit, democracy, civil liberty and proper governance that wherever possible the letter of the law must be followed.