While I`ve seen incredible differences between U.S. contract writers in how bulleted lists are numbered, and even in how individual lawyers number bulleted lists in a single written agreement, I have yet to see a practical example where ignoring the type of numbers used for a bulleted list could lead to ambiguity. That may be possible. The idea that the authors want the courts to ignore how they organize language in census problems, because ambiguous “subsequent modifiers” are common fatal cases and structured census is an important tool for prevention. The United States Constitution is an organic document that is always open to interpretation and amendment (through amendments), and it is interesting to look at some of the language chosen by the authors. For example, for the census, “individuals” is used, not “residents” or “citizens.” This implies that every person living in the United States should be counted regardless of their immigration or citizenship status. However, there are those who oppose it, as the census is supposed to determine the number of members in the House of Representatives and believes that by not limiting the census only to citizens or legal residents, it provides an “unfair advantage” to elected officials representing states with large immigrant populations or DACA/Dreamer. Enumeration and headers. The enumerations and headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and do not affect the meaning or interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement. Section six gives the Senate exclusive power to hear impeachment proceedings and establishes basic procedures for impeachment proceedings.
The Supreme Court has interpreted this section to mean that the Senate has exclusive and unverifiable power to determine what constitutes an appropriate impeachment process. [41] Of the nineteen federal officials formally impeached by the House of Representatives, three resigned (meaning the case was dropped), seven were acquitted, and eight (all judges) were convicted by the Senate. On one occasion (in the case of Senator William Blount in 1797), the Senate refused to hold a trial on the grounds that the House of Representatives lacked jurisdiction over members of the Senate; in any case, Blount had already been expelled from the Senate. [42] But contract writing differs from these other areas in that it clings to English prose in terms of basic expression. Although legal English is dangerously distant from everyday English in terms of diction, usage and style, it lacks a key innovation in the formal languages of other professions. Legal English has no special notation to indicate the “order of operations” or how two or more logical connections are linked in a single question. The U.S. Supreme Court has sometimes declared New Deal programs unconstitutional because they broadened the meaning of the trade clause. In der Rechtssache Schechter Poultry Corp.
v. United States (1935), the Court unanimously struck down industry regulations governing poultry slaughter, stating that Congress could not regulate the poultry trade that had “taken a permanent rest in the State.” As Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said, “With respect to the poultry we are talking about, the flow of interstate trade has stopped. Court decisions against the attempt to use the congressional trade clause continued throughout the 1930s. Writers use bulleted lists and conventions about their meaning instead of grouping symbols as parentheses. Like defined terms and references, these agreements are not based on law, but are known as agreements between lawyers. They work with the same magic that gives a term quoted in parentheses the same meaning in terms on the back of a parking lot or a 100-page merger agreement. Originally, the population of each state and nation as a whole was determined by adding three-fifths of the number of all other people (i.e., slaves) to the total number of free people, but excluding untaxed Native Americans. This constitutional rule, known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, was a South-North compromise in which three-fifths of the slave population was counted for the purposes of counting and distributing seats in the House of Representatives and taxes among the states. According to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (written in 1833), it was “a matter of compromise and concession, admittedly unequal in its operation, but a necessary sacrifice to that spirit of reconciliation which was essential to the union of states with a great diversity of interests, physical constitution, and political institutions.” [27] Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) subsequently replaced Section 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and explicitly repealed the compromise. Not including enumeration in an American-style treaty could have a number of practical implications: Nglish: Translation of enumeration for Spanish speakers The third type of meaning seems to be the most likely victim of a disclaimer “enumeration means nothing”.