Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz
It's also a simple matter of logic that generally considering it be 'open to interpretation' how much the words are relevant is a frontal assault on those words mattering.
|
Part of the reason we pay lawyers is that this shit, when done well, requires more than
simple logic.
The local Boy Scout Troop charters only one bus to go on a popular fishing trip. Over the last couple of years, the bus has gotten very crowded with scouts bringing their camping equipment (tents, etc.) on the bus despite encouragement to have parents and den leaders bring those bulky items in separate vehicles.
This year, the Troop posts an announcement: "Due to limited space on the bus going to our boy scout fishing trip, scouts may bring only fishing poles, bait, fishing tackle, and other equipment on the bus."
Johnny attempts to bring a backhoe onto the bus. It is, after all, "other equipment," and words matter.
Jimmy tries to bring a trolling motor, even though there are no boats on the trip. That is, after all, fishing equipment.
Jack just brings his tent and sleeping bag. Other equipment and all that.
What about camping chairs in which people will sit to fish?
In figuring out what "other equipment" means, does context matter? Does history? Does the intent of the rule? Can reasonable, well-meaning people minds differ over examples like the camping chair?
________________________________________________________
Or, to use a very classic example, say that there is a sign banning vehicles in the park.
Someone tries to drive his car in the park. That's easy. The sign forbids it.
What about a disabled person in a wheelchair?
A disabled person in a motorized wheelchair?
Someone who is not disabled who is delivering a wheelchair to someone and pushes it through the park on the way there? Decides to ride it through instead?
The city trash trucks to collect refuse from the trash cans?
What about a little girl pushing her doll in a stroller?
What about a bicycle?
Rollerblades?
Matchbox cars?
A memorial to the city's war dead that includes a tank?
http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/les...novehicles.pdf
____________________________________________________
Don't you see? Interpreting language is hard and subtle.
Quote:
|
Another option exists; not assuming that those who disagree with us do so because they have no principles, but dealing with their arguments instead of assassinating their motivations.
|
FYI, when "strict constructionists" say that they are giving the only possible interpretation of a law, and that the answer is easy, and that anyone who disagrees with them is thus purposely misreading the law to reach a desired political result, they are saying that those people lack principles and have malignant motivations.
Admitting that hard problems are hard and not pretending that they are easy is not a sign of bad character.