Suchergebnisse
Filter
Format
Medientyp
Sprache
Weitere Sprachen
Jahre
22088 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
Chart Error
In: Public administration review: PAR, Band 40, Heft 2, S. 203
ISSN: 1540-6210
Error in Laos
In: Far Eastern survey, Band 16, Heft 11, S. 121-124
Monnet's error?
In: Economic policy, Band 31, Heft 86, S. 247-297
ISSN: 1468-0327
SSRN
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
Working paper
The Scrivener's Error
It is widely accepted that courts may correct legislative drafting mistakes, i.e., so-called scrivener's errors, if and only if such mistakes are "absolutely clear." The rationale is that if a court were to recognize a less clear error, it might be "rewriting" the statute rather than correcting a technical mistake. This Article argues that the standard is much too strict. The current rationale ignores that courts can "rewrite," i.e., misinterpret, a statute both by recognizing an error and by failing to do so. Accordingly, because the current doctrine is designed to protect against one type of mistake (false positives) but not the other (false negatives), it systematically underrecognizes errors and results in systematic misinterpretation of the law. Using the example of King v. Burwell, this Article shows that the overly strict scrivener's error doctrine threatens dramatic real-world harm. In King, opponents of the Affordable Care Act exploited a likely, but less than absolutely clear, scrivener's error to nearly bring down the most significant health reform legislation of the past half century. More still, the challenge only failed because six Justices were willing to accept an implausible textual argument. Furthermore, King is far from sui generis. Recent challenges to ambitious executive branch action, for example, try to take similar advantage of the current doctrine.
BASE
The Scrivener's Error
In: Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 110, Pg. 811, 2016
SSRN
Measuring Measurement Error
SSRN
SSRN