zlacker

[parent] [thread] 0 comments
1. Superm+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-05 20:16:03
> It doesn't need to.

Your interpretation is not compelling (as well as not relevant, due to the presence of the term).

When there is a question, entertained by a court and an emduring legal precedent, ipso facto there was a legal question. An assumption about what needs to be enumerated to exist, is the doctrine of strict constructionism.

[go to top]