AUGUST 17, 1998

Most are not familiar or remember this date.  It’s too bad.  It just happens to be one of the most important dates in the history of America.

This is the official date that lawyers took total control of all laws, contracts, legal matters and written documents.  This is the date wherein the Lawyer in Chief let it be known that they were in control of the English language which gave them total control over anyone and anything using it.

This is the shortest (5 seconds),  but most important video you will ever see.  This brief but illustrative remark by Bill Clinton was the final salvo by American lawyers in their decades long transformation of America  from a Republic to an Oligarchy.   And this was just the beginning of abuse of the English language by America’s ruling class.

Judges Dig Deeper into Meaning of Everyday Words

Ted Landphair | Washington, D.C.  August 08, 2011

Thirteen years ago, U.S. President Bill Clinton, who was embroiled in a sex scandal, famously answered a grand jury question by saying, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

A lot of people thought that was funny – or an awfully narrow parsing of a commonly understood word. But seeking such ultra-careful interpretations of ordinary words in legal settings may be catching on.
In courtrooms across the country, judges themselves are digging deep into the meaning of everyday words. As recently as June, even U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts consulted five dictionaries to divine the meaning of “of” for an opinion.

And judges in lower courts have thumbed through dictionaries to ponder the best definition of the words “now,” “any,” and “if.”

One problem with this is that there are many dictionaries – and thus many definitions of the same word.

J. Gordon Christy, a Mississippi College School of Law professor, grumbles that “We are treated to the truly absurd spectacle of august justices and judges arguing over which unreliable dictionary and which unreliable dictionary definition should be deemed authoritative.”

A study by the Marquette Law Review, reported in the New York Times, found Supreme Court justices citing dictionary definitions 295 times in 225 opinions over the first 10 years of this century.

And they used 120 different dictionaries to do it.

In 1995, for instance, Justice Clarence Thomas consulted dictionaries published in 1773, 1789, and 1796 to try to determine exactly what the framers of the U.S. Constitution meant by the word “commerce.”

One of two things appears to be at work. Either judges are choosing their words extra, extra carefully. Or Noah Webster and other lexicographers, dead and alive, are helping to interpret the law.

Click for Original Article

Download PDF
 
 
 

About the author

More posts by

 

1 Comment

  • Bill in Tennessee

    While the judges are looking at the meaning of “commerce” they should also divine the meaning of “regulate” that appears in the “commerce clause” of the Constitution. Today, that word means to control, or to set impediments to commerce, but the framers meant something else entirely. “Regulate” in the 1700s meant “to make regular”…that is, to REMOVE impediments that might slow down or control commerce. So do you see how language can change over time? Do you suppose even ONE representative today will try to “regulate” (or remove barriers and make regular) the commerce in this country, or do you suppose they will ignore the original intent and set even more burdens on business?

     
 

 

Add a comment

required

required

optional