The Code of Law

Originally published February 13, 2004.

Sec 1: Any provision of this column held to be invalid or untrue by its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, shall be construed so as to give it the maximum effect permitted by law, unless such holding shall be one of utter invalidity or untruth, in which event such provision shall be deemed severable from this column and shall not affect the remainder thereof or the application of such provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other, dissimilar circumstances.

Sec 2: Huh?

I never gave much thought to legal language until the controversy over the U.S. Patriot Act began. Tired of reading what other people thought about the act, I decided I’d go straight to the source to see how my rights were supposedly being invaded. What did I find?

“(1) in subsection (a)(1) – (A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that subparagraph), by striking ; and ‘and inserting a comma…”

I couldn’t make sense of it. Subparagraphs of paragraphs of the subsection of a section of an act? What? The language of law, informally referred to as “legalese,” is hardly comprehensible. I’d probably have an easier time understanding a Dr. Seuss book being read aloud by Ozzy Osbourne.

Cheryl Stephens, a lawyer and plain language advocate, said, “Legalese uses outdated grammar and sentence structures. It also tends to use improper or nonstandard punctuation, passive voice and awkward pronoun references. It is wordy, turgid, impersonal and suffers from the use of archaic vocabulary.”

Where the English language used in conversation has continually evolved, legalese has remained static. It was a fairly formal style when our politicians wore white wigs; now it’s just archaic. The jargon is so separate from standard English that linguists have identified it as its own dialect.

It’s almost as if government documents are written in code. Years of study at law school can allow one to crack the code, but without specialized training, many laws are unintelligible. Codes are designed to prevent people from accessing information. Legal jargon accomplishes the same goal.

Citizens are dependant on lawyers, politicians and journalists to interpret the laws and other government documents for them. Without the skill to directly evaluate these documents themselves, the general public is essentially left out of the loop. It creates a rift between those creating the laws and those who must abide by them.

If you can’t understand your rights as a tenant, you’re more likely to be taken advantage of by your knowledgeable landlord. Upper-class tax lawyers can easily maneuver loopholes and other money-savers within tax laws, while those without access to the information miss out. Even at the polls on Election Day, there’s a pretty good chance you’ll be asked to vote on a proposal you won’t be able to understand. Last time I voted, I just crossed my fingers and hoped I was reading it correctly.

There was actually a push for less jargon in government during the 1990s. In 1993, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order setting customer service standards within federal agencies. This began the process of an attempted federal overhaul to make agencies more responsive to citizens’ needs. In 1998, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling found INS documents failed to “simply and plainly communicate” legal consequences to plaintiffs. Shortly after, President Clinton offered a “Presidential Memorandum on Plain Language.” Clinton’s memorandum – itself in plain language – said simply, “The Federal Government’s writing must be in plain language. By using plain language, we send a clear message about what the Government is doing, what it requires, and what services it offers.”

Clinton’s memorandum had a positive effect on the language many agencies used in their public documents. Since the Bush administration took over, no new plain-language initiatives have all been implemented, and the concepts have mostly been ignored. More importantly, the Clinton memorandum had no effect on legal writing, which remains beyond the understanding of ordinary people.

Information about the way the government works, citizens’ rights and responsibilities should be accessible to all. Lawyers don’t want to see law written in plain language, because it would mean more people could operate without legal services. Politicians don’t want to see law written in plain language because it would mean we’d know what they were up to.

Imagine a world where all the laws are written in plain language. Wouldn’t it be nice if reading proposed laws were like reading the newspaper? Bills and acts could make great bathroom reading in a pinch! The U.S. Patriot Act would read something to the effect of, “Law enforcement no longer needs a warrant to find out what phone calls you’ve made or received,” instead of this convoluted bit: ” (iii) the attributes of the communications to which the order applies, such as the number or other identifier, and, if known, the location of the telephone line or other facility to which the pen register or trap and trace device is to be attached or applied and, in the case of a trap and trace device, the geographic limits of the trap and trace order.” (Sec 214(a)(4)(A)(iii)) See how a little clarity could go a long way?

Changing the vocabulary and grammatical style in which laws are written is a necessary fight. I’m sure it will not happen anytime soon, but one day – if the government is truly “for and by the people” – it will operate in the people’s language. Until then, we must try our best to decode the jargon. For now, we may as well have laws written in pig Latin. At least then, I’d understand them.

Copyright © 2004 Targum Publishing Co.

I Love Jesus and George W. Bush

Originally published April 21, 2004

I have a little problem with President George W. Bush. I’ve never seen the guy with even a speck of facial hair. Never a sign of stubble. Five o’clock rolls around, but you can’t see George’s shadow. He could be the spokesman for Gillette. Seriously, it’s a little unsettling.

As far as I know, Bush has never grown a beard. He’s as clean-cut today as he was during his dedicated service in the Texas Air National Guard. No member of his cabinet is bearded. No member of his family is bearded. You’d be hard-pressed to find a hairy Bush.

And yet, when asked to name the political philosopher or thinker with whom he most identified, Bush came up with a guy who had a long beard and long, beautiful hair. He picked a sandal-wearing communist Jew. “Christ,” Bush chose, “because he changed my heart.”

“Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard,” said the Big Guy in Leviticus. Christ, who lived like a hippie and supposedly looked like a fourth member of ZZ Top, would be an unlikely candidate for Bush’s admiration – if not for the whole Christianity-son of God thing. However, the devout Bush says he was saved by the bearded Lord, and during his presidency, Bush has made it very clear that he loves Jesus.

What would Jesus do if Bush told him of this love? He’d probably say, “Love ya, too!” A reading from the book of Luke: “With all thy strength, love thy neighbor as thyself, and love thy enemy.” What a brilliant guy Jesus was. He preached love. Unconditional love.

Jesus had a pretty neat idea. The only way to rid yourself of all that tiring negativity is to love sinners – bless persecutors and pray for tax collectors. When was the last time, instead of merely bending over, you got down on your knees for the Internal Revenue Service? Jesus taught that if you go out of your way to love those who wrong you, you fill your heart with love.

But what if a guy claims to follow your principles while war-mongering and fattening the bellies of the Pharisees? What the hell – love him too! “Love thy enemies.” I’m willing to give it a shot, so here goes: I love George W. Bush!

I doubt it’s mutual because it doesn’t seem like G.W. understands this concept. In fact, Bush consistently acts against the fundamental teachings of Christ. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t love him anyway. Yes, my children, love the president with all your heart. But if you’re trying to follow the teachings of Jesus, you should abhor Bush’s policy.

A reading from the book of Matthew: “‘If you want to be perfect,’ said Christ to a young man seeking eternal happiness, ‘go and sell everything you have and give the money to the poor, then you will have riches in heaven; and come, follow me.’ But when the young man heard this, he went away sadly, for he had many riches.”

Bush, who has had many riches his whole life, has turned his back on these teachings. A series of three consecutive tax cuts, which add up to the largest tax cut in U.S history, have rewarded those with the most riches. The average tax cut for people making more than $1 million a year was $112,925, where the average cut for the lowest 60 percent was $304. The richest 1 percent will see a 17-percent tax reduction by the end of the decade. The other 99 percent will see a 5-percent drop. Eternal happiness? I don’t think so.

Meanwhile, with less federal money to go around, the burden is being pushed onto the states, which has led to state budget crises. All over the nation, state services are being cut while property taxes are being raised. State colleges are struggling to make ends meet, while the average tuition is up $579. Sound familiar, campers?

Okay, so maybe Bush missed the part about helping the poor. No problem. The Bible’s pretty thick. We still love him, right?

A reading from the book of Matthew: “Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall be called the children of God.” Now, Christ is not specifically referring to the U.N. Peacekeeper forces, but Bush did a pretty good job of smiting the United Nations with the unilateral pre-emptive strike on Iraq. And yet, the question remains, why liberate Iraq when there are downtrodden and persecuted people all over the world. Was it liberation? Terror? Weapons of mass destruction? Were any of these real factors? Jesus and I like being told the truth. “Blessed are the pure in heart.”

A reading from the book of John: “A woman, taken for adultery, was brought to Jesus by the Pharisees, who asked, ‘Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned, but what sayest thou?’ to which Jesus replied ‘If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone.’”

Bush threw more stones than any other governor in U.S. history. There were 152 executions in Texas during Bush’s term. Jesus, a huge proponent of forgiveness, would not approve of any of this. How about those big explosive rocks that brought “shock and awe”? Is the United States, who originally funded Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, “without sin”?

A reading from the book of Matthew: “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners. When you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father. He, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

The Christian right constantly touts their Christianity, when the majority of Christ’s teachings are more in line with a Liberal viewpoint. You don’t have to be the most vocal Christian to do the Lord’s work. In fact, you don’t have to be Christian at all. But, you might have to be a Liberal.

If George W. Bush wants to be a Christian, he needs to ask himself the simple question that appears on bumper stickers all over the country: What would Jesus do?

First and foremost, Jesus would encourage love. So, I’m going to try to give it a fair try. President Bush, I love you. You don’t make it easy, but at least for now, Mr. President, you have my love. But of course, I’m just saying that to get you in the sack.

Copyright © 2004 Targum Publishing Co.