Sorry man, but no, I can't agree with you. I have an example actually, the constitution. The constitution is written in somewhat plain language, which is why it has been so easy to poke holes in. For example, the second amendment. This is going to chap your ass, and most people that read this, but without the historical context, the second amendment does not outline a personal right to bear arms unambiguously. Now, reading it in that way is completely reasonable, even more so with the historical context, but the unfortunate truth is that laws need to "stand on their own legs", and generally do not have the luxury of being interpreted within a context. That's why the argument that is doesn't outline a personal right to bare arms holds legal weight. Both are valid arguments because the language is not unambiguous, despite what people like to think. This is why legalese is so important, it makes situations like that less probable.