|
In a message dated 11/22/2005 9:09:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Webster's Third International does not contain the word "totally" in Well, can Madison be faulted for failing to use a dictionary that wasn't
available, even in its first edition?
As a general principle, I would note that the Supreme Court does seem to
rely on the Webster's Third Edition International Dictionary for definitions of
common and ordinary language.
Is the Court's insistence on use of an international dictionary further
evidence of our loss of national boundaries (he queries mischieviously).
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
