As someone who gave birth to an attorney, but has not studied the law myself, I appreciate the methodical step-by-step. I think I finally understand. However, it seems that if the intention of the authors was to require section 5, section 3 would not be necessary and at the very least redundant. Therefore, it makes more sense that section 5 is included as a way to 'undo' section 3 should it apply.
As someone who gave birth to an attorney, but has not studied the law myself, I appreciate the methodical step-by-step. I think I finally understand. However, it seems that if the intention of the authors was to require section 5, section 3 would not be necessary and at the very least redundant. Therefore, it makes more sense that section 5 is included as a way to 'undo' section 3 should it apply.
As someone who gave birth to an attorney, but has not studied the law myself, I appreciate the methodical step-by-step. I think I finally understand. However, it seems that if the intention of the authors was to require section 5, section 3 would not be necessary and at the very least redundant. Therefore, it makes more sense that section 5 is included as a way to 'undo' section 3 should it apply.