| More
about Statutory Drafting "Rules."
Chapters 2 and 4 of the Minnesota drafting handbook
that you were given to read in the previous Problem
are actually only two small chapters in a much longer
book that contains many more detailed materials on legislative
drafting. You might wish to look over this entire
Minnesota Guide to get
a better sense of just how much effort is actually required
to draft statutory language properly, given the overall
complexity of our language, the many
different rules and canons for interpreting statutory
language, and the myriad of other political,
philosophical, social, etc., factors involved in statutory
construction.
The Minnesota legislative drafting materials are quite
exceptional, although most other states also do provide
some type of instructional materials to the members
of their legislative and rule-making bodies. California
and Oregon,
for example, present many of these
same drafting and statutory construction concepts to
members of their judicial and legislative bodies, but
in slightly different ways.
You might also be wondering whether there are substantially
different "rules" for drafting federal as
opposed to state legislation. Interestingly enough,
legislative drafting is legislative
drafting, wherever it occurs and whatever specific form
it may take. You should have noticed in all of these
materials the various references to basic principles
of good writing, grammar, and word usage. These principles
are generally the same, regardless of the jurisdiction.
Return to Part
I Questions
|
