Official style has been
normalized to evoke authority, expertise, and precision. This style has
been used especially in the United States government within legislative
documents such as bills, acts, vetoes, amendments, proposals, and laws.
Official style is complex, jargonistic, bureaucratic, and usually impossible
for the average adult to read. So why does our government choose this style in
documents important to the lives of citizens? Is it necessary to use official
style to avoid misinterpretation? In certain spheres of human activity,
official style is used to confuse, distort ideas, or wrongfully persuade. In
the case of law, official style clarifies for politicians while puzzling the
general public. I chose to follow the use of official style in United States
law, particularly the right to bear arms, and see how the official style has
evolved and what it means for the average American citizen.
The original record of the American right to bear
arms according to the Bill of Rights goes as follows:
“A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
This one sentence leaves a lot up
for interpretation, which many future politicians would take advantage of. To
understand what was meant by this statement historical context must be taken
into account. There has been a lot of debate between whether the right to “keep
and bear arms” belongs only to state governments for maintenance of military
force, or if it is the right for each citizen to own and use guns. According to
David E. Vandrecoy, the Framers who wrote this amendment had an original intent
to give citizens the right to be armed and “to be armed at a level equal to the
government”. Simply put, this amendment
was included in the Bill of Rights to prevent the new American government from
becoming the tyrannical British government the Framers were escaping from. Official
style could have been used when writing the Bill of Rights to specify exactly
what was meant, but that would have taken away the poetic nature of the
document. The Framers must have intended to simplify this so the citizens would
understand and quickly agree; in turn creating the opportunity for future ambiguity
in interpretation.
Every
state legislature and national lawmaker has misinterpreted the second amendment.
This might sound shocking- and I’m not making a biased political statement. If
the second amendment had been interpreted how the Framers had intended, guns
would be used solely for militia drills by the states. We would not have
college students carrying guns around campus, intoxicated people couldn’t
handle a gun in Missouri, and “Stand Your Ground” would not exist. Unlike
the original Second Amendment the new laws offer no possibility for further interpretation,
because they used official style. One example of this is Wisconsin’s recent
Concealed Carry Rule. The Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level for this forty seven page
document is grade nineteen, but the average adult in the United States reads at
the seventh grade level. The average adult
couldn’t even begin to understand this document! The document opens up with the
following:
On October 25, 2011, DOJ adopted emergency rules relating to the
implementation of DOJ’s statutory responsibilities under 2011 Wis. Act 35
regarding licenses authorizing persons to carry concealed weapons, the
certification of firearm safety and training instructors, the recognition by
Wisconsin of concealed carry licenses issued by other states, and concealed
carry certification cards for qualified former federal law enforcement officers.
That was one sentence! The verbose within
this passage alone creates a very official tone because it could easily be simplified to “On October 25, 2011, DOJ put into place the concealed carry
rule”, excluding multiple clauses and all of the specifications. This is the
introduction to the document, so one would expect it to be clear on what is to
come. Even though it specifies what is included under the “emergency rule” it
is not clear. It takes a while to get to the point, and in documents that many
people will be reading it is essential to state the purpose right away. Of
course this passage contains a bureaucratic tone since it is a government document,
but couldn’t it be more relatable to the general public? The public are the
people who need to understand and abide by these rules. This may sound like a
contradiction but used this way law is used to confuse as well as clarify. The
official style used in law documents clarifies specifications to lawmakers so
they are unable to interpret the law differently or evolve it in the future
without adding separate amendments. At the same time, law confuses the general
public by adding additional clauses, rules, and repeating sentences that seem
unnecessary. Most citizens wouldn’t take the time to read and pick apart a
document that is twelve grade levels above their own reading ability, so they
either blindly accept the law or blindly oppose it. We trust politicians to be
able to understand the documents for us and make the important decisions.
Politicians,
lawyers, or any person involved in government affairs might argue the official
style is necessary when writing any government document. What they are writing
will be written in history! They need it to look good and smart to reflect how
good and smart of a leader they were. Within our founding government documents
such as the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence it seems like
they contain some official bureaucratic elements that if written today would be
classified in the official style. Politicians of today strive for government
documents to be consistent with this historical tone, but times change. When
the Framers used official style it was actually how they talked to one another.
It was easily understood by the masses because when read out loud it did not
require translation. Oral communication has evolved (or regressed) and written
communication should have stayed consistent with this evolution. If politicians
of today truly wanted to emulate our forefathers they would make government
documents more accessible to the public. The idea of democracy is a government
made up of the people of a country, and if the people can’t read what their
politicians are writing how can they play their part?
In
Section 227.11(2)(a) of the Concealed Carry document official style is also
especially apparent. This section of the document explains what “rule-making
authority” is allowed or supposed to do. In section (a) the document states
that “each agency may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute”
which is a complex way of saying agencies are allowed to interpret the
concealed carry rule. The document goes on to say “a rule is not valid if the
rule exceeds the bounds of correct interpretation”. The writers of the document wanted to seem like there is some leeway
for interpreting the concealed carry rule, but deeper within they make it near
impossible to make any changes. This facade represents what politicians do to government
documents: slipping in additions to undermine the surface intention. The
document goes on to identify three sections of specifications about “statutory
provisions” that further limit the possibility of interpretation. The
complexity and length of describing these specifications show how the lawmakers
made it near impossible to change or understand this rule any differently then
what they originally intended.
If
the Framers wrote in a more elaborate official style would these
interpretations and modern laws have happened? One outcome of official style is
eliminating the chance for misinterpretation. The style is also used to confuse
the general public who don’t understand specific jargon or read at an average
level. I believe the Framers wanted to avoid any confusion to their citizens at
the time, but doing so allowed future lawmakers to take advantage of their
simplicity. If lawmakers today wrote as lawmakers did back then average
citizens could understand laws, but politicians couldn't take advantage like
they do today. Maybe the Framers intended to make their documents open for
interpretation, because that is what democracy is all about. Our laws should be
flexible so they can change along with our evolving society. The United States
government and lawmakers alike have lost this important idea when they write
their laws and documents today. If the official style shuts the door on
opportunity for interpretation, how can our society grow and develop?
--Amber Middleton
For further information on the Second Amendment and Wisconsin's Concealed Carry Rule visit these websites:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/default/files/dles/ccw/permanent-rules.pdf
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment