USC Title 1—General Provisions Ch. 1: Rules of Construction:
1. Words denoting number, gender, etc.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
words importing the plural include the singular;
words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;
words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;
the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
“officer” includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;
“signature” or “subscription” includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such;
“oath” includes affirmation, and “sworn” includes affirmed;
“writing” includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing, manifolding, or otherwise.
The Government’s Legal Right to Lie in Legislation
This Title of the US Code allows for lawmakers to skew the meaning and phrases of the bills that they pass enabling courts to grant legal structures the same rights as people. Correcting this blatant abusive power will require an act that forces all legislation to be written with clear and concise language with singular meanings.
This should also go hand in hand with the popular Single Issue Bills for Congress.
Here are some proposed solutions, provided by @Nicole_C_Scott witten by the AI service Grok.
According to Grok, 'Here’s how solutions might be applied in the context of Title 1, Chapter 1 of the U.S. Code, which sets out rules for statutory interpretation:
- Laws in Plain Language:
- Amendments to Title 1 could explicitly require that all new statutes must be drafted in plain language. This would mean revising sections like the one specifying the interpretation of words denoting number, gender, etc., to use more contemporary and inclusive language. For instance, replacing “words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well” with “words importing a gender include all genders.”
- Training for Legislative Drafters:
- The Office of the Law Revision Counsel, responsible for preparing and revising the United States Code, could institute or enhance training programs. This training would focus on eliminating outdated references (like “insane person”) and ensuring that terms are defined in a way that avoids ambiguity.
- Legislative Review Panels:
- Establish a panel that includes members from the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, plain language experts, and perhaps representatives from the public or affected communities to review and suggest changes to Title 1, Chapter 1. This panel could recommend updates to definitions or interpretations to reflect modern standards or eliminate ambiguity.
- Single-Issue Legislation (@PatriotAK ):
- While this directly impacts how bills are drafted rather than how they’re interpreted, ensuring that each bill deals with a single issue might lead to less complex statutory construction rules. If every law is straightforward in its intent and scope, the need for broad interpretative rules might decrease.
- Public Engagement (revised by @DRSE ):
- Before revising or adding to Title 1, hold public consultations or use digital platforms to collect input on how these rules of construction are understood by the public in order to establish expectations for clarity in the law that align with the intent of the law; any amendments are limited to the original intent or desired impact/effect. This could lead to amendments that reflect public comprehension and expectations for clarity in law.
These solutions would not just apply to the creation of new legislation but could also involve revisiting and revising existing statutory interpretation rules to align with modern standards of clarity and inclusiveness. The application would need to be careful not to disrupt the legal stability provided by current interpretations unless there is a clear public benefit or necessity for change.’
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title1/chapter1&edition=prelim
