that example seems pretty clear to me, payments are due on the last day of the month," you don't get any clearer than that. If they meant "working day" they would have put in in specifically if they thought it out well and drafted it smartlyNo, that's exactly how law words, and especially contract law. The question of intent is central to what words mean.
For example, when a contract says "payments are due on the last day of the month," does that mean the last working day? The last day even if it's a weekend? Does it mean your payment is late if it arrives after the sun goes down? How do we know "month" is referring to a month on the modern Gregorian Calendar and not the months of the Julian or Inuit calendars?
A reasonable assessment of intent is fundamental to interpreting virtually all law.
Thanks for your idiosyncratic interpretations, but the High Court has disagreed for decades. If the courts now adopted your ponderous reasoning and rejected Hamilton's, Helvering would be overturned and Social Security ruled unconstitutional. Have you bothered to peruse the 1937 Helvering decision?I never said they nullify Article I. You keep resorting to straw-men which is a sure sign the argument is getting away from you.
I am saying that the 9th and 10th Amendments come chronologically after the general welfare clause and even Article I. To the extent that anything in the 9th and 10th conflicts with implied or expressed intent in earlier versions of the Constitution we are logically compelled to honor the language of those later amendments.
Let's get to what they actually say (emphasis added):
- The 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- The 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
How on earth could anyone honestly read those words and say an open-ended interpretation of the federal governments powers and authorities exists?
... because the intent of those who agreed to the contract language is manifest. They don't have to define "month" because we can reasonably infer what they meant, and that's the point.And people trying to argue intent from people long dead is absolutely pointless.
But Framer Hamilton's intent should be rejected because you disagree with it.Furthermore, Intent is crucial where contract language is either vague or contradictory. Have you ever been involved in a contract dispute? If so, was intent of either party really a non-factor?
|More than 8 in 10 black Americans describe Trump as racist: poll||Current Events|
|Exclusive: Americans say Soleimani's killing made US less safe, Trump 'reckless' on Iran||Current Events|
|8 Days Into June And Many Americans Are Still Waiting For Food Stamp Money||Current Events|
|Americans still blame Republicans for shutdown||Current Events|