The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Holy Roman Empire, Actual Malice, and Criminal Conversation
The Holy Roman Empire, it was famously put (by Voltaire, I think), was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Likewise, the First Amendment "actual malice" test isn't actually about malice, but rather about whether the speaker knew the statement was false or likely false (and indeed the Court has had to make clear that actual malice in the English sense of ill will or hostility doesn't suffice). And "criminal conversation" was (and in a few jurisdictions still is) a tort, not a crime, and it focuses on illicit sex, not conversation in the modern English sense of the word.
Hence this question: Are there other legalese phrases of two or more words, in which the modern English sense of every one of the words (perhaps excluding articles and prepositions) does not actually correspond to the legal term? To be sure, plenty of legal phrases involve meanings that go beyond the English words ("freedom of speech" may cover communication that wouldn't normally be labeled "speech," such as handwriting, flag waving, flag burning, and the like). Likewise, plenty aren't understood as being composed of English words at all (such as "res judicata" or "habeas corpus"). But I'm looking here for phrases that do use ordinary English words but use them in a sense quite different from the modern English meaning of each word.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Maybe "Necessary and Proper."? Sure doesn't seem to follow what people think is necessary or proper in the modern sense.
More, "Convenient, and Eh, Whatever" in practice.
And I don't think it follows what people thought was necessary or proper at the time it was adopted, either.
"Constructive abandonment" sort of fits?
"Interstate commerce"
in Idaho we have a law against "infamous crimes against nature". that's always been a good one. It refers to putting penises anywhere but the vagina for sexual purposes.
I'm also a fan of Idaho's concept of burglary, which simply means to enter any structure or vehicle with the intention to commit theft, thereby turning every candy shoplifter into a felon.
How about Idaho's "aggravated DUI", which, unlike other states that focus on driving drunk and without a license, refers to a DUI where someone is badly hurt. In other words, culpability is based on outcome, rather than acts or intentions.
Jaypd: Just to be clear, putting a penis in one's own hand for sexual purposes (quite likely the most frequent form of sexual stimulation) isn't an infamous crime against nature, no?
we have no case on that point. We do, however, have a case indicating it cannot be enforced against married persons doing it consensually, so presumably you consent to your own hand, and would be safe.
What the fuck is wrong with Idaho, with its backwater militias, old-timey racists, and un-American, freeloading misfits?
STATES RANKED BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
COLLEGE DEGREE
Idaho 38
ADVANCED DEGREE
Idaho 41
Any reason the NCAA (or any legitimate, mainstream institution) should have anything to do with Idaho until that state advances to within 40 years of modern America? The NCAA should probably let Idaho schools participate in NCAA events, but should never send anyone to Idaho for any reason.
Which of those do you feel is a good example of “legalese phrases of two or more words, in which the modern English sense of every one of the words (perhaps excluding articles and prepositions) does not actually correspond to the legal term? ”
I can't be constrained by rules, I'm from Idaho.
also- to have asked this question about the infamous crime against nature, I have to assume you believe in criminalizing penises going anywhere but the vagina. I think most folks today do not think there's anything infamous, criminal, or against nature about a BJ.
Isn’t the fact that it’s a crime exactly what you’re complaining about?
Yeah so you are saying that a word contains it's normal meaning and whatever the folks of the past into law. I think the whole point is that they don't. Most crimes don't call themselves crimes. This one does because over a hundred years ago that made sense. It doesn't now.
"Constructive notice". It isn't constructive and it doesn't give notice.
The Holy Roman Empire was the "First Reich", Hitler's Reign was the Third, so what was the "Second Reich"??
Frank
Wasn't it the German Empire, 1871 to 1918?
You are correct sir!
According to the Internet, Voltaire wrote "Ce corps qui s’appelait et qui s’appelle encore le saint empire romain n’était en aucune manière ni saint, ni romain, ni empire."
Said to be from Essai sur l’histoire générale et sur les mœurs et l’esprit des nations. I don't see it there.
Have you checked the penumbras?
"reasonable"
How about a “backwards” example. In law, we use “moot” to mean “subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty.” As in, Moot Court (which always focuses on topical and interesting legal issues that have not yet been settled). But pretty much everyone else uses moot to mean something along the lines of, “It’s no longer subject to debate or dispute…usually because it’s no longer relevant to us.” (eg, “Who gets the family dog?” in a divorce case becomes moot, if the dog dies while divorce proceedings are still ongoing.)
Not an exact opposite, but close enough for government (or internet musings) work.
I think that’s more akin to “to table” a motion or bill, which mean exact opposites in Britain and the US.
That's purely an American usage. In Britain, moot still means "yet to be decided".
More on point: “Act of God.”
We use it, I think, to refer to natural events that are 100% explainable by science…ie, not the tiniest bit “Caused by a god” with the benefit of 21st century knowledge. In law, it's commonly used to describe events/results that cannot be traced to a specific act or inaction by another human.
But isn’t the phrase “explainable by science” itself debunkable? Every act that primitive people used to ascribe to “scientists” “explaining” things – making verbal sounds, marking paper, typing patterns on keyboards, etc. – can instead be ascribed to completely natural phenomena, patterns of neurons, muscles, and other completely natural human biological phenomena. So reduced, there is nothing left to ascribe to “science,” which, like a” god,” used to be regarded as something that could stand outside nature, above nature, to “explain” it. Since there are only completely natural phenomena, and these natural phenomena completely account for the noises, paper marking, or typing patterns observed, there is thus no need to posit the existence of any superfluous “science” or “explanation.” There is no need to regard natural phenomena as being caused by supernatural things. It would violate Occam’s Razor to continue to believe that such things exist.
On the other hand, if scientists can act entirely through natural phenomena, yet somehow stand outside it enough to be able to have enough free will to “explain” it, so that reducing all their actions to natural phenomena does not entirely eliminate their existence, perhaps the same might be true of God. If explaining the cause of the observable results of science, paper-marking behavior etc., as caused solely by the biochemistry and electromechanics of neurons and muscles does not entirely eliminate the concept of an Act of Scientist, perhaps explaining the cause of weather through natural physical phenomena does not entirely eliminate the concept of an Act of God.
It's usually understood as things that are outside of anyone's control, isn't it? The processes of a landslide may be scientifically explicable, but it's still a bunch of incaclulable variables that boil down to 'chance' that it went over your car.
"Unclean hands" has nothing to do with cleanliness and nothing to do with one's hands.
The Solicitor General is neither. And the Secretary of the Interior is not a secretary, and is responsible only for stuff that's outside.
You don't think the solicitor general is a solicitor? (As in: lawyer)
And you don’t think the solicitor general is a general solicitor as opposed to a private or specialized one?
A frenchified Anglo-Norman general solicitor. But a general solicitor all the same.
Statute of Frauds?
I guess some, or most, jurisdictions have codified it but it started as a common law principle. And there is no fraud requirement or even attempt involved.
Are you sure? I’m pretty sure in my contracts class we learned that it was originally a statute.
Black’s Law Dictionary gives the origin as a “1677 English statute that declared certain contracts judicially unenforceable (but not void) if they were not committed to writing and signed by the party to be charged. The statute was entitled ‘An Act for the Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries’”.
So it I would be a statute, and while I think there’s room to question how well-tailored it is to that purpose, I think it is indeed geared at reducing fraud.
Police power is general government power and is not about the police.
I've often wondered if that usage is related to the military usage of "policing the grounds" (picking up litter) and "kitchen police" (washing dishes).
But it is a power
Demure vs Demurred?
Bail
"of two or more words"
I DQ myself.
"sanction"
For a legal blog, people sure have trouble reading some very simple instructions.
Checking a dictionary, "conversation" in the sense of sex is about two centuries obsolete. Another obsolete sense is found in "just deserts". What is just is not a dry, sandy place and is not a sweet to eat after a meal. It is what one deserves.
"excited delirium" – bogus medical concept
"history and tradition" – in Bruen context: history negated, tradition neglected
"original public understanding" – excuse for legal presentism
"major questions doctrine" – pretend legal doctrine; actually SCOTUS FOMO
"public square" – rarely refers to an identifiable place
"free speech" – fails to distinguish speech and publication
"reckless disregard" – reverses and excuses actually reckless disregard
"appearance of influence or access" – euphemism for corporate bribery
"charitable organization" – intermediary to hide bribes' sources
"well-regulated militia" – in English, under military discipline; in the law, meaningless
In the real estate context "quiet enjoyment" does not mean your neighbor has to keep the stereo down.
Attractive nuisance