Patriotdiscussions wrote:They are called rules of statutory interpretation, you should learn them...
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/ ... fss_papers
The rule expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the inclusion of the one is the exclusion of the other): when a list of specific items is not followed by general words it is to be taken as exhaustive. For example, “weekends and public holidays” excludes ordinary weekdays
“(5) The rule ejusdem generis (of the same kind): when a list of specific items belonging to the same class is followed by general words (as in ‘cats, dogs, and other animals’), the general words are to be treated as confined to other items of the same class (in this example, to other domestic animals).
No, we don't need to "learn them." We're already aware of these rules, remember? And citing these rules in this forum as you did is a sure sign that you have been reading the usual wackadooster nonsense on the internet.
It's also a sure sign that you don't know how to use these rules.
The Quatloos regulars have covered the misuse of these rules over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over in this forum. See also the Tax Protester FAQ:
Misuse of the maxims “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” or “ejusdem generis.”
The Latin phrase “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” is a maxim of statutory construction, and translates roughly as “the expression of one meaning is an exclusion of others.” The maxim “is an aid to construction, not a rule of law. It can never override clear and contrary evidences of Congressional intent.” Neuberger v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 83, 88 (1940). It “serves only as an aid in discovering the legislative intent when * * * [it] is not otherwise manifest.” United States v. Barnes, 222 U.S. 513, 519 (1912); see 2A Sutherland Stat. Const. sec. 47.23 (1984).
A similar, but somewhat different principle, is “ejusdem generis,” meaning “of the same kind.” A court following the principle of ejusdem generis might construe general words that follow or precede specific words in a statute as limited to meanings similar in nature to those enumerated by the preceding specific words. See, Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 114-15 (2001). So, for example, the deduction allows by IRC section 165(c)(3) for losses due to “fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty” has been limited to “casualties” similar in suddeness and severity to fires, storms, and shipwrecks, and not extended to gradual losses, such as termite infestations. See United States v. Rogers, 120 F. 2d 244 (1941).
These rules of construction are used to eliminate ambiguities or uncertainties in statutes, but tax protesters frequently use them to distort the meaning of unambiguous statutes and negate the ordinary meanings of words....
--From The Tax Protester FAQ, copyright by Daniel B. Evans. See:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#expressiounius
Again, you don't seem to understand what's going on here. This Quatloos forum has been here for many, many, many years. I have been posting here for over seven years, and many posters have been here much longer than that. I have been studying people like you for over 15 years, and very intensively -- virtually every day -- for over eight years.
So far, you have come up with nothing that the Quatloos regulars haven't already seen and debunked long before you arrived, "Patriotdiscussions".
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!
