Pulsifer v. United States, a case that turns on a federal law’s use of “and”
motherjones.com
motherjones.com
!A && !B && !C
!(A && B && C) !A || !B || !C
It's also apparently preferred by the majority of Americans, by polling: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/elitist-superfluous-or-...
For certain sentences, semicolons are sometimes needed in lieu of commas to introduce greater grouping when formatted text is unavailable: Mary visited New York City, New York; Chicago, Illinois; and San Francisco, California.
>"Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college."
It seems abundantly clear to me that the second example is poorly worded and should say "or" instead of "and". The same goes for the actual court case. Arguing that "and" actually means "or" makes very little sense.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/canceling-the-word-shall-i...
>In 1995, for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno that under certain contexts, shall could be construed as may. The decision does not imply that shall always means may, but rather that unless expressly defined, context determines whether shall is mandatory or precatory. [...] Congress also issued the Plain Writing Act of 2010 (the Act), which required all federal agencies to follow the federal plain language guidelines and use must instead of shall when imposing requirements.
> 1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
No, it doesn’t. The SC said “unless expressly defined”, and the RFC expressly defines it.
There's also no reason for legal contracts or laws to be written with archaic formulations, but common law countries have a fetish for this kind of thing.
Implementations should support the entire spec, and not produce something outside of spec, then every implementation can interact with every other implementation.
If the implementers can't agree what's within spec and what's not, it's a bug in the spec.
Law has a similar requirement, only slightly looser because it has a fallback of getting a human judge to decide in case of disagreement. Still, ambiguity in a law is a bug.
In both cases, you do use natural language, which can rely on context, so the real test is, or should be, whether a "reasonable person" would choose a different interpretation, not whether one is technically possible.
One example from my past was a contract that levied specific requirements for equipment operated autonomously with software, but "autonomous" wasn't explicitly defined. A contractor who didn't want to spend the money to meet the extra requirements argued the system couldn't be considered autonomous because it required a human to turn it on (despite being fully autonomous after that point).
So, if a law says "A peace officer shall not shoot innocent unarmed minorities" but fails to specify any punishment for non-compliance then it is merely "directory" and nothing will come of any violation of that law.
For instance all the laws regarding how jails should be run (e.g. prisoners shall be fed) are all directory, not mandatory because there is no punishment for failure.
https://www.isba.org/committees/governmentlawyers/newsletter...
Generally though, yes, you are right it becomes a constitutional violation, rather than a statutory violation if you don't feed the prisoners. Often though the statues give rights above and beyond the constitution. For instance, in Illinois it requires jails to give prisoners 1800 calories a day. But it is not enforceable. So they can give a lot less as long as they don't kill you. And IIRC the statute also demands "The menu shall be diversified so as to avoid the monotony of a standardized diet." which again is not enforceable. So they can basically just feed you Nutriloaf once a day and call it job done.
https://ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/020/0200070100011...
It's funny because the first line includes a bug in it. It says a minimum of "1800 to 2000 calories." Well, which is it?
(also, just a thought, but there are generally no punishments for violating a person's constitutional rights -- you can sue for your injuries, but prisoners specifically are severely restricted by Congress on bringing suits against their captors because there were too many, and those suits can only allege physical harm, not any kind of mental or emotional suffering)
The problem is the prevailing US attitude of incarceration as punitive, divine retribution rather than rehabilitation and reintegration.
One who breaches their duty to another by breaking a law intended to protect the party against the very harm sustained, resulting in harm to the other is liable to the other for pe we negligence.
There is no reason that the absence of a penalty under the statute would immunize everyone violating it from per se negligence, unless I’m missing something foundational here.
I'm not feeling that you could sue, in Illinois at least. Sure, the law said they "shall" do it, but it's directory, not mandatory. It just looks like it is mandatory. I know 100% you cannot prosecute a government official for Official Misconduct[0] in Illinois for violating a law that says they "shall" do something unless it also has an associated punishment for the specific statute they violated.
[0] (720 ILCS 5/33-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 33-3) Sec. 33-3. Official misconduct. (a) A public officer or employee or special government agent commits misconduct when, in his official capacity or capacity as a special government agent, he or she commits any of the following acts: (1) Intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as required by law;
One thing I can say is that the statutory text you have pasted talks about misconduct but it says absolutely nothing about negligence.
> “The Court has had cases, for example, that turned on the word ‘so’” and “the use of a definite article instead of indefinite (‘the’ instead of ‘a’),” he says. “This is all a product of the ascendancy of ‘textualism’—the theory of statutory construction that aims to discern precisely what the words Congress enacted mean, as opposed to what Congress probably intended to say.”
Great news, if true, for nerds in comment sections everywhere trying to get away with treating the law as code by nitpicking the letter of the law.
instead of listening to the intent in good faith (pun intended) we stick with how _we_ interpret some word and what we believe the _text_ means?
If there is a law that fines you for wearing a blue shirt and you get fined for wearing a red shirt, but the court says “we know the intention was red shirt” then that is arbitrary enforcement of the law, we are just at the whims of the officials in the government and not being run by the laws.
A textualist approach can also unfortunately lead to biased decisions, but only to the extent Congress is imprecise with language. A textualist approach has the benefit of discouraging Congress from crafting bad legislation that requires judicial interpretation in the first place.
Laws do often come with details about why the law was passed, and there is often the public debate on the law before hand.
Members of congress have spoken against legal rulings on the basis that it went against their intent.
not (A and B and C)
But then if you think about it in context, that law would make little to no sense. So likely they intended "or".
I have no idea how this works in the US, but here judges are told to follow the intention of the law and not the precise text. You wouldn't get out because someone made a grammar error.
"You can have some of my pie if you don't have eggs, sausages, and bacon."
"You can have some of my pie if you don't have eggs, sausages, or bacon."
To me the second one sounds more natural. The first one sounds very unusual. I can have pie only on the condition that I don't have all three things? Okay... It sounds so strange because no one ever says that. I can't see someone using "and" there if they didn't mean it, because it's such an unusual grammatical construction.
You can call me for a ride if you are drunk and there are no taxis available.
You can call me for a ride if you are drunk or there are no taxis available.
I don't think your examples are that great, since you're listing requirements that "you" must meet to call for a ride, not things that disqualify "you" from calling for a ride. Also, using both "and" and "or" with lists of two items is common. Both "don't drink and drive" and "don't drink or drive" are plausible pieces of advice. "Twelve hours prior to the surgery don't drink, eat, and take any medicine" would be a very strange indication; it almost sounds like I'm being not to drink or eat, but to take any medicine of my choosing?
The points needed to satisfy one of the clauses goes down as the "seriousness" of the crime goes up.
If you got 4 total points, you're out, but if you only have 2 points and it's due to a violent offense, you're also out.
Also if it were intended as "meeting all of the criteria disqualifies you", then part A is completely redundant, isn't it? If B and C are true then A is also true.
"normally" the court has to apply strict interpretation of the written text. if that strict interpretation leads to ambiguity or confusion or logical fallacy, then the court has to see the "legislative intent" of why the enactment was made in the first place in order to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what the framers of the law intended to be.
if the word written is "and" meaning +, that would imply in strict sense that this is a condition that has to be followed along with other conditions.
now, if someone says no, the legislative intent was not to be + but "or" because the enactment wants to provide relief and not to incur more punishment, and that applying the "+" interpretation would violate my fundamental rights, then the court can decide if the loose definition is justified from the legislative intent and can accept the same.
The second amendment is: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The definition of an armament according to Britannica is: military weapons that are used to fight a war
Nuclear bombs have been used by the US military to fight a war. By your logic the right of the people to have nuclear bombs is protected by the second amendment.
Where can I get a nuke?
The whole argument about the 2nd Amendment is because it's so vague and ambiguous. If it had just clearly said "Each citizen is permitted to own a flintlock musket, 2 flintlock pistols, and a cavalry sword" (which was probably much closer to the intent of the Amendment) then we wouldn't have such a big issue with gun control. Then again, we might just have fully automatic assault "muskets".
In any case, even if you were allowed to own a nuclear weapon, that doesn't mean that you can afford one. You're allowed to own a Blackhawk helicopter or a HEMMT too, but do you? Herein lies the problem of gun ownership as a "right". Does that mean that people should be provided with guns for free?
Define well regulated and explain how it had anything to do with excluding certain types of weapons.
>The whole argument about the 2nd Amendment is because it's so vague and ambiguous. If it had just clearly said "Each citizen is permitted to own a flintlock musket, 2 flintlock pistols, and a cavalry sword" (which was probably much closer to the intent of the Amendment) then we wouldn't have such a big issue with gun control. Then again, we might just have fully automatic assault "muskets".
This is utterly ridiculous. There were rudimentary automatic weapons (puckle guns) that existed decades prior the Constitution.
Second, private citizens owned the same weaponry as the military. Canons, guns, ships, etc. If the founders wanted to limit the citizens they would have said that was their intention.
Third, if you want to take the interpretation that says only things that existed at the time qualify, then surely you are consistent and don't think the first amendment applies to the internet? Or do you just hold that standard for the 2nd amendment.
>In any case, even if you were allowed to own a nuclear weapon, that doesn't mean that you can afford one.
True, but irrelevant.
>You're allowed to own a Blackhawk helicopter or a HEMMT too, but do you?
I don't have any intention of owning either or nukes for that matter.
>Herein lies the problem of gun ownership as a "right". Does that mean that people should be provided with guns for free?
I don't think rights means you should necessarily be provided it. I don't think the government owes me free electricity and computer so I can exercise my first amendment rights for example. And before you say that example is dumb, remember that people are pushing the idea that the internet is a right. Well the internet is useless without a computer/phone. And a computer/phone is useless without electricity.
Regardless of your wish that guns are not a right, they are considered one in the US. If the US pushes the idea that healthcare is a right and as such it must be free, then I would support a lawsuit that demanded free guns from the government. I believe in consistently applying standards.
Go and tell your congres to vote on either outcome and whichever side has the most votes wins.
The court should have refused the case as non justiciable, it takes 2 votes in a single afternoon to settle a binary question of legislative intent.
Will SCOTUS do this?
>
> > So you’re going in for a medical test and you receive something from the hospital, and it says, to receive this test, the patient should not, and then, you know, it has a list of things that the patient shouldn’t do, and it says the patient shouldn’t eat any food, drink any liquids, *and* smoke. So I’m going to assume…that you’re not a smoker. Do you feel perfectly able to eat and drink as much as you want?
That isn't happening, though. I was curious so I looked at the last paperwork I have my hands on. It said "Do not:" and then there was a bullet point list, no conjunctions. I don't think it's ambiguous, and Kagan's argument here is disingenuous.
It seems there are certain situations where I interpret any to mean all, or any and all:
> from any floor, you can use the fire escape to reach the ground
> ensure we have proper licensing for any software we depend upon
> press any key, 3 times
> aim to dress for any weather
These seem obviously plural, but I don't know if I should expect everybody to agree. Clearly all would be better, when it makes sense.
Still, more commonly, it's any single from the set of "all", for some all.
[1] and not in the way written about at https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3248
Personally I don't read this as "press all keys 3 times" but "for all keys, you can press it 3 times <to continue>" but I agree with the rest. In that sense it is a universal quantifier to throw in a formal logic term.
I'd say both QQQ & QWE would satisfy "press any key, 3 times". It's not necessarily saying to press the same key 3 times. "Press any 3 keys" isn't the same, because I could just press one key three times.
"From any floor, you can use the fire escape to reach the ground" -> "It is true at all floors that you can use the fire escape to reach the ground". In this case you can replace "any" with "all" without changing the meaning; hypothetically one could interpret that to mean that while occupying all floors simultaneously you can use the fire escape to reach the ground, but since that's impossible (unless there's only a single floor) no one would interpret that sentence that way.
"Ensure we have proper licensing for {any|all} software we depend upon". Again the meaning is preserved, because in this case "for all" is actually the more correct form. Every one will interpret "for any" correctly (as "for all"), but it could alternatively be interpreted to mean that you must have the license of at least one of said software.
"Press any key, 3 times." -> "It is true of all keys that you can pick it and press it three times. Do so for one." Obviously the meaning changes if you just replace "any" with "all". A more subtle nuance is whether you're being asked to [press three times] [any key] or to [press any key] [three times].
"Aim to dress for any weather" -> "It is true of all weathers that you should aim to dress for it". This is the same case as the second example, it should have been "all". Otherwise there's an ambiguity that could be interpreted to mean that you should aim to dress for an arbitrary weather of your choosing.
I would say that "any" when used in a declarative statement (such as your first example) means that the proposition is true for all members of the set under consideration. When used in an imperative statement (such as the other ones) sometimes will mean that you must apply the action to all members of the set, and sometimes that you're free to choose any subset and apply it to those. "Wash any dog" and "wash any dogs" and "for any dog, wash a cat" all mean different things.
And what about the general principle that ambiguity is decided against the drafter? This isn't a contract, but surely a similar principle should apply to the direct removal of individual liberty by the government. If congress didn't actually do the diligence to enact the more restrictive ruleset, then it seems that the correct judgement is the one that gives the government a lesser ability to keep people in cages.
What happens is that the judges can go back to all the formal recorded debates of the legislators concerning this law to try and figure out their intent.
In my case it was just someone making a typing error because the police rushed into the legislative chamber and demanded a literal last-minute change to a completed bill. They fixed it six months later when someone noticed it. No helping anyone in the meantime who is affected by the error though. It is very, very rare that a judge will go against the wording of a law even if it is literally insane.
Now The Supreme Court spends their time fixing it.
Unambiguous language should use parentheses like maths do. Or avoid negatives ("not", "except", etc.).
There are contexts where, somewhat puzzlingly, or(/and) is the more natural word to use, but where it's possible to argue that using and(/or) would have been more literally correct. For example:
> How do you make a higher order function in Python? You have two choices: you can use nested scopes _or_ you can use callable objects.
Here 'or' is the most natural word to use, but one could argue the more literally correct word to use would have been 'and'.
Another simplification: you can use nested scopes and callable objects vs you can use nested scopes and callable objects
In my understanding, the court should strive to interpret the law by its intention, and here it seems reasonable that the AND should not have been there. It should just have been "If any item in the following list of conditions are met [A, B, C]", even if it seems syntactically less polite, there's at least no ambiguity as to what it means.
The prisoner is not responsible for this, and therefore, the law must be interpreted literally. "and". Set him free.
There is reasonable doubt that the law says they must be imprisoned, therefore, they must go free.
If YOU were a judge/jury, would you really want to stake years of someone's life over what ended up being a typo by an overworked intern? (Also, I think this could be a good argument against mandatory minimums, just out of principle)