M: I'm looking to find the contact information for a guy named Mark Elias, spelled M-A-R-C E-L-I-A-S, who evidently works for Democracy Docket, which is a website. Please go online and see what you can find. I did a quick check, but my phone likely limited the options in terms of figuring out who he is and how to get in touch with him. I was listening to a podcast and it sounded like he might be actually capable and willing to listen to the idea that I've been working on in terms of interpreting the Constitution.

G: Here’s what I was able to find online about Marc Elias (the correct spelling is Marc, not Mark), his connection to Democracy Docket, and ways you might be able to contact him:

📌 Who He Is

📞 Contact Options

Marc Elias doesn’t list a public direct phone number or personal email online, but here are official channels where inquiries can be directed:

Elias Law Group (his law firm)

These are the publicly available contact channels for Elias Law Group, where Marc is a leading figure and where inquiries about his work can be routed.

📬 Other Ways to Reach or Follow

🧠 How to Approach Contacting Him

Since Marc Elias is a very prominent lawyer and public figure with a leadership role in a law firm and a media platform:

If you want help drafting a concise outreach message (email or social), I can help you write one.

M:

Is there an argument to be made that law is a programming language?

G: TL;DR: Yes. There is a strong, defensible argument that law—especially constitutional and statutory law—functions as a programming language, with humans and institutions acting as the runtime and interpreters rather than machines.

The Core Argument

Law and programming languages solve the same class of problem:

How do you write instructions that govern future behavior across situations you cannot fully predict?

They diverge in execution substrate (humans vs. silicon), not in logical structure.

1. Law Has Syntax, Semantics, and Scope

Like a programming language, law has:

Bad syntax in code throws errors.
Bad syntax in law produces litigation.

This is not metaphorical; it’s functional equivalence.

2. Conditional Logic Is Everywhere

Statutes are saturated with if–then logic:

That is straight-line, early procedural programming, not OOP.

18th–19th century law looks much more like:

IF condition
THEN authority exists
EXCEPT when overridden

…which maps cleanly to linear, imperative programming, not modern abstractions.

3. Courts Are Interpreters, Not Oracles

A critical parallel:

Both interpret text under constraints.

A compiler:

A court:

Different substrates, same process.

4. Precedent Is Version Control

Case law functions like:

Over time, the “language” accretes quirks:

Anyone who has maintained a large codebase recognizes this immediately.

5. The Constitution as a Bootstrapping Program

The U.S. Constitution is not an application.
It’s a bootloader.

This is exactly how early system design worked:

The Framers didn’t write Java. They wrote assembly.

6. Why This Analogy Actually Matters

Seeing law as a programming language explains things that otherwise look irrational:

It also clarifies why modern governance stress exists: We are running a 21st-century society on a language designed before abstraction, namespaces, or error handling were well understood.

A Useful Framing Sentence (if you’re pitching this)

Law is a human-executed programming language designed to govern future behavior under uncertainty, with courts acting as interpreters and precedent functioning as accumulated runtime patches.

That sentence lands with lawyers and engineers.

Japanese reinforcement (Grade-1 level, one example)

法（ほう） は 人（ひと） が 使（つか）う プログラム 言語（げんご） です
— Law is a programming language used by people.

This argument is not a gimmick.
It’s a reframing that exposes structural truths about why law behaves the way it does, and why certain interpretive fights are inevitable rather than partisan.

It holds up under pressure.