Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Congress in the Mouth of a Lawyer

View through CrossRef
<span> <p><span>It is common to loosely speak of “Congress” as making federal law—or what the Constitution refers to as the “supreme Law of the Land.”&nbsp; But what, precisely, do we mean when we speak of “Congress” as lawmaker?&nbsp; One might be tempted to answer that those references to “Congress” refer to the House and Senate alone.&nbsp; And in many other contexts, that simple definition is (of course) legally accurate.&nbsp; But when we think more carefully about references to “Congress” making law, it becomes clear that the simple definition will not do.&nbsp; That is because the Constitution does not permit the House and Senate to make law alone—those two chambers must instead make law in concert with a third actor: the President.&nbsp; The situation is thus reminiscent of that in England, where the constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey explained that “Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer . . . the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.”&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></p> <p><span>This Article argues that, like in England where the supreme law of the land is made by a legally precise understanding of “Parliament” that includes the King, in America the supreme law of the land is made by a legally precise understanding of “Congress” that includes the President.&nbsp; Of course, in formal terms, the President is not actually a member of Congress (although the Vice President is).&nbsp; But informal references to “Congress” as lawmaker are not themselves intended to be legally precise.&nbsp; Instead, those references are best understood as implicit references to a broader, multi-branch “Congress” that includes the President.&nbsp; This Article elucidates those implicit references to the multi-branch “Congress” and explains why failing to make those implicit references explicit has led to substantial problems in the field of statutory interpretation.&nbsp;</span></p> <p><span><b>Suggested Citation</b>: Chad Squitieri, <i>Congress in the Mouth of a Lawyer</i>, 78 Ala. L. Rev. (forthcoming)</span></p></span>
Title: Congress in the Mouth of a Lawyer
Description:
<span> <p><span>It is common to loosely speak of “Congress” as making federal law—or what the Constitution refers to as the “supreme Law of the Land.
”&nbsp; But what, precisely, do we mean when we speak of “Congress” as lawmaker?&nbsp; One might be tempted to answer that those references to “Congress” refer to the House and Senate alone.
&nbsp; And in many other contexts, that simple definition is (of course) legally accurate.
&nbsp; But when we think more carefully about references to “Congress” making law, it becomes clear that the simple definition will not do.
&nbsp; That is because the Constitution does not permit the House and Senate to make law alone—those two chambers must instead make law in concert with a third actor: the President.
&nbsp; The situation is thus reminiscent of that in England, where the constitutional theorist A.
V.
Dicey explained that “Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer .
.
.
the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.
”&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></p> <p><span>This Article argues that, like in England where the supreme law of the land is made by a legally precise understanding of “Parliament” that includes the King, in America the supreme law of the land is made by a legally precise understanding of “Congress” that includes the President.
&nbsp; Of course, in formal terms, the President is not actually a member of Congress (although the Vice President is).
&nbsp; But informal references to “Congress” as lawmaker are not themselves intended to be legally precise.
&nbsp; Instead, those references are best understood as implicit references to a broader, multi-branch “Congress” that includes the President.
&nbsp; This Article elucidates those implicit references to the multi-branch “Congress” and explains why failing to make those implicit references explicit has led to substantial problems in the field of statutory interpretation.
&nbsp;</span></p> <p><span><b>Suggested Citation</b>: Chad Squitieri, <i>Congress in the Mouth of a Lawyer</i>, 78 Ala.
L.
Rev.
(forthcoming)</span></p></span>.

Related Results

Organizing the work of the smart electronic lawyer in litigation
Organizing the work of the smart electronic lawyer in litigation
This study showed the dimensions of introducing artificial intelligence (AI) into the judicial field through a smart, non-human electronic lawyer who performs the work of a traditi...
Lawyer confidentiality
Lawyer confidentiality
The role of the lawyer is characterized by a focus on counseling, advocacy and conciliation. A lawyer advises a client on legal issues, considers the possibilities of resolving the...
Integrity in the professional activity of a lawyer
Integrity in the professional activity of a lawyer
Based on the analysis of legal acts that regulate the processes of professional selection of personnel in the legal field, as well as modern scientific works, the professional inte...
Addressing Witness Coaching by Cross-Examination
Addressing Witness Coaching by Cross-Examination
In preparing a witness, may a lawyer script the testimony by taking the witness through repeated rehearsals to fabricate a narrative in the form directed by the lawyer and to use w...
Mapping regional oral dryness
Mapping regional oral dryness
The Regional Oral Dryness Inventory (RODI), a newly developed questionnaire which quantifies the severity of dryness at various locations in the mouth. It was found that there is a...
Hedgehog signaling controls mouth opening in the amphioxus
Hedgehog signaling controls mouth opening in the amphioxus
AbstractIntroductionThe left-sided position of the mouth in amphioxus larvae has fascinated researchers for a long time. Despite the fundamental importance of mouth development in ...

Back to Top