Put another way - in Latin I can say "te amo" or "amo te" but in English I cannot say "I love" or "love I", the statements are meaningless. They require syntactical qualification because they lack grammar.
And over time, the grammar of English could change so that this is possible.

Now - the point in question is really very important, because laws are drafted using words, and they will be on the statute books for centuries, and you cannot re-interpret them because you don't understand what the original jurist meant.
Laws should not be on the book for "centuries". Would you lament the laws of Shakespeare's time (assuming any such hold-overs) because we have a different interpretation of them now? What a rigid and backwards view of the law; get a grip.

The case in-point is that the US has had to specifically outlaw homosexual marriage because the Constitution and existing laws did not explicitly state the nature of "marriage". This was a legal absurdity, because the framers of said Laws took the understanding of the word "marriage" to intrinsically mean a heterosexual union.
This is exactly why laws should not be retained for perpetuity without amendment at the least.

We can just re-interpret laws whenever we like as our taste in words changes
Or, we could update them to reflect new meanings?

My, what an idea.

Your shaky understanding of linguistics fails you.
Not seeing anything new here, just more prescriptivist rubbish...