Re: AND means OR, an alternative view to consider?

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Third Party on February 03, 1998 at 18:42:11:

In Reply to: Re: AND means OR posted by Common Right Group on February 02, 1998 at 08:02:13:

Body deleted to save space.

Perhaps there is another view which you are both overlooking in the 'meaning of words' department. From the original statement:

:constitutional provisions which state that "in a
: criminal proceeding the accused shall have the
: right to appear and defend in person AND by counsel."
: The Religious Order of Black Frocks in both states
: have ruled that in this instance, AND means OR. In
: other words, you may appear and defend in person, or
: you may appear and defend by counsel, but not both.

Read your constitutional provision more closely. Could it be that its meaning is that you HAVE both rights, whereas the ruling you state means that you may only EXERCISE one or the other, whichever it is you choose? It would appear self-evident that you cannot do both at the same time.

I have the right to jump off a cliff AND not jump off a cliff, yet I cannot do both simultaneously.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]