Senatus consultum on derived meaning from legal authorities (Nova Roma)

SENATUS CONSULTUM ON DERIVING MEANING FROM LEGAL AUTHORITIES

The Senate establishes the following as a common code for deriving meaning from any of the legal code that have no established process of their own to facilitate that.

I. The Senate, recognizing that the legal authorities, as defined at I.B Constitution of Nova Roma, may not possess an integral process to establish meaning from sections, phrases and words where such meaning is unclear or disputed, institutes the following mandatory methodology to be applied in order to create a uniform standard of deriving such meaning. This methodology only applies to any such legal authority that does not posses its own integral process to establish such meaning in respect of its own contents, where such a process is clearly indicated as a dispute resolution and/or interpretative methodology.

II. The magistrates as defined at IV.A, IV.B.2 of the Constitution of Nova Roma, as well as all provincial governors and magistrates of oppidia and municipia and all other appointed or elected officials of Nova Roma must adopt and use this methodology established in this Senatus consultum in order to derive such meaning when there is a dispute or uncertainty as regards a section over (but not limited to) its:

1. Intent

2. Meaning

3. Consequence(s)

4. Limit(s)

5. Condition(s)

6. Conflict with one or more other legal authorities

7. Unforeseen situations

8. Scope

9. Unjust result

10. (Any other dispute not specified in II.1 to II.9 inclusive)

III. The literal rule or plain meaning rule must be adopted to resolve any of the disputes at II.1 to II.10 inclusive, which shall be defined for the purposes of this Senatus consultum as the process of examining each word and establishing a meaning based on reference to:

1. http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reference.html

2. http://www.merriam-webster.com/

IV. Each word in the section or phrase subject of the dispute at II.1 to II.10 inclusive shall be searched first within III.1. If a meaning is found then this shall be the only meaning that shall be adopted and no search shall be made within III.2, but if that search of III.1 does not find a meaning then III.2 shall be searched and then this shall be the only meaning that shall be adopted.

V. In the event a search of III.2 does not find a meaning then the word not found shall be ignored. Any obvious spelling mistakes in the word shall be ignored and the correct spelling substituted for the purposes of the searches at III.1 and/or III.2. With words that are inflected, a search should be made on the free morpheme element of that word.

VI. If the dispute or uncertainty at section II is over the alleged meaning of a section, phrase or word and one meaning is held to exist by one or more parties to the dispute, and denied by one or more other parties to the dispute then the definitive test of meaning shall be, after the searches at III.1 and/or III.2 have been completed on all the words in the section, phrase or word, whether the alleged meaning is found within the meaning(s) discovered during such searches at III.1 and/or III.2.

VII. If the alleged meaning at section VI is found then that section, phrase or word shall be assigned that meaning as its final and lawful meaning and shall for the purposes of deriving meaning and resolving the dispute or uncertainty prove that the alleged meaning is true.

VIII. It is forbidden for the alleged meaning at VI to be implied or inferred from the meanings found. It has to be present in the searches at III.1 and/or III.2 in the exact word(s) that form the alleged meaning. The alleged meaning has to be present in the immediate result of the searches at III.1 and/or III.2. Continuing such searches, or drilling down, on any phrase or word that was in the immediate results of a search at III.1 and/or III.2 for the purpose of trying to find the alleged meaning is forbidden. Only one search shall be conducted using the dictionaries at III.1 and/or III.2.

IX. If the searches at III.1 and/or III.2 reveal an absence of any such exact word(s) as are in what is held to be the alleged meaning, by any of the parties to the dispute or uncertainty, then that shall be the final and lawful proof that such an alleged meaning is false.

X. If as a result of the searches at III.1 and/or III.2 it is held by one or more parties to the dispute or uncertainty that the derived literal meaning is a legal absurdity, or some other issue is alleged to have arisen, or still exist, from the searches at III.1 and/or III.2 then a consul or praetor shall apply his/her own interpretation of the result of such searches, and his/her interpretation shall be held to be the final and lawful meaning of the section, phrase or word. Such an interpretation by a consul or praetor shall be deemed to be with the full legal authority of this Senatus consultum applied to it and through it. Such an interpretation by a consul or praetor shall be lawful even if that consul or praetor is a party to the dispute.

XI. In the event that there is a dispute or uncertainty over any section, phrase or word of this Senatus consultum then, regardless of section II, the process to establish meaning from any section, phrase or word where such meaning is unclear or disputed shall be by the interpretation of a Consul or Praetor and his/her interpretation shall be held to be the final and lawful meaning of the section, phrase or word. Such an interpretation by a consul or praetor shall be deemed to be with the full legal authority of this Senatus consultum applied to it and through it.

XII. The final and lawful proof so established at VII shall be defined and applied as though that meaning was contained within the legal instrument subject of the dispute or uncertainty and shall have the full authority of this Senatus consultum applied to it and through it, as well as that of the legal authority subject of the dispute or uncertainty.

XIII. In respect of grammar and punctuation used in the section, phrase or word subject of the dispute or uncertainty, the grammatical and punctuation rules of American English shall be used to assist the consul or praetor at section X of this Senatus consultum. The following shall be, for the purposes of this Senatus consultum, the definitive and only permitted sources for use in respect to grammar and punctuation:

1. Grammar: http://www.bartleby.com/141/

2. Punctuation: http://www.grammarbook.com/

XIV. In respect of 1.C of the Lex Arminia Equitia de imperio, “the power to interpret the law within the duties of the magistrate holding the Potestas” shall be defined as a power exercised using the methodology described in this Senatus consultum. It is the duty of the magistrate to follow this methodology and any method of interpretation that does not fall within the terms, processes and scope of this Senatus consultum is forbidden and illegal.

XV. In respect of 2.E of the Lex Arminia Equitia de imperio, “the power to interpret the law, on all levels on all Nova Roma subjects” shall be defined as a power exercised using the methodology described in this Senatus consultum. Specifically “on all levels” is defined as all levels of the legal authorities as specified at I.B Constitution of Nova Roma and does not confer upon such interpretation any greater legal authority that would allow this Senatus consultum to be circumvented. It is the duty of the magistrate to follow this methodology and any method of interpretation that does not fall within the terms, processes and scope of this Senatus consultum is forbidden and illegal.

XVI. For the purposes of sections X or XI of this Senatus consultum, the interpretation of a consul shall prevail over that of a praetor if the opinions of both differ.

XVII. If for the purposes of sections X or XI both consuls disagree on such an interpretation, then the Senate by way of Senatus consultum passed by way of simple majority shall resolve the matter. Such a matter must be put to the Senate at the next formal meeting of the Senate in session following such a disagreement. Both interpretations must be offered to the Senate to vote upon. No other method of resolution is lawful. Until the Senate resolves the matter no interpretation held as true by either consul shall be considered final and lawful.