This example does not reflect the traditional wording of loops and spacers, since there was no original piece of legislation, but only a conclusion of the Senate committee on rejection. Yet invoking the image of the belt and shoulder straps to support a doubling against the agency`s excessive stretching is a reminder of how legislators have become comfortable with metaphor and the practice of formulation. [117]. The Court also cites Scalia & Garner, which describe the practice of “relaxing synonyms and quasi-synonyms” as “regressive.” (cite Scalia & Garner, note 11 above, at p. 179). Despite all these insults, Scalia and Garner deserve to be commended for admitting that the anti-excess gun in general needs to give way to what we call the belt and shoulder strap gun, which recognizes actual design practices. The future of the canon, we suspect, will be a clear relaxation of the rule against excesses. This standard against surpluses is too entrenched and powerful to disappear completely, although we would probably encourage the ten states that have adopted a version of the anti-redundancy standard to repeal it or to include a belt and brace reserve in their codes. Even if the courts do not always pay attention to legislative direction (as the majority of Minnesota did in Nelson above),195 it would be better to better align codified canons with editorial practices. But the more the courts become familiar with the legislative realities associated with the development of belts and shoulder straps, the more reasonably one can expect a mitigation of the anti-redundancy standard used too often, which is in fact a product of the legal invention rather than estimating legislative preference. Our exploration of the level of comfort the courts have shown with the acceptance and rejection of a belt and shoulder gun reinforces the conclusion that it can be applied responsibly.

However, after dealing with more difficult cases in Part III, we offer some specific observations for more principles-based use in future cases. The term belt and shoulder straps has been used to describe bankers who demand that credit policy be adhered to very strictly. More generally, it describes an attitude in which several levels of safety procedures must be introduced to minimize risks. While the term complementary can be used to describe a prudent and honest lender, it can also ridicule behaviors that are considered too conservative. A starting point is to identify the transaction risks to be addressed in the contract and the business needs that need to be taken into account. Often, writers opt for a “belt and shoulder straps” approach, which is not only a terrible fashion misstep, but can also lead to excessive stretching that denies the effectiveness of the risk management strategy. A 2011 Texas bill added a number of informed consent requirements to make abortion more difficult in the state.91 A relatively standard amendment to the severability clause was proposed and debated in the House of Representatives.92 Representative Miller said that while his amendment was not necessary, its inclusion was an important support for failures in the bill. Rep. Farrar suggested that Miller`s explicit insistence on the use of belt designs and spacers – “Actually, I really have no worries. But it`s a bit like putting on your belt and shoulder straps too. I want to cover all aspects. 93 – revealed that Miller was not entirely convinced in the bill.

Nevertheless, the supposedly unnecessary severability clause was included to preserve the rest of the bill and clarify its intent. Ultimately, the clause became part of the final law signed by the governor in 2011. This essay, by illustrating and unpacking the popularity of a “belt and shoulder straps” approach for legislators in drafting, helps explain the legislative dynamics that lead to adequate redundancy. After identifying this legislative rationality, the essay then begins with the project of helping the courts decide when to apply what we call the canon of “belts and suspenders,” and when it might make sense to resort to their rule against the superfluous. This analytical project of differentiating the relative relevance of different canons to different contexts has value both for judges whose interpretative approach to laws focuses exclusively on textual meaning and for judges whose approach also emphasizes the underlying legislative objective and intent. [122]. See, for example, McEvoy v. IEI Barge Servs. Inc., 622 F.3d 671, 677 (7th Cir. 2010) (“The fact that the various paragraphs of section 7604(f) may overlap to some extent is not a reason to reject the natural interpretation of a statute.

Congress can take a belt-and-strap approach to achieving its policy goals, and it seems it did when it added the broader provision to the law through a subsequent amendment. »). In the following, we will first focus on some relatively uncontested cases. We then avoid more difficult cases where the courts seem more contradictory. In doing so, we examine how the most difficult cases could help the courts apply this common formulation technique in the future. Simple cases can take the form of a plea for the relevance of belt and spacer formulations and the irrelevance of the rule against the superfluous.100 Alternatively, simple cases may be reasonable rejections of belt and brace arguments in favor of the rule against the superfluous.101 But sometimes the cases are simply serious.102 After discussing examples of the three types of cases, we note that how the presumption of excess could be reshaped.103 We do so in light of our part II conclusions that a barrel of belts and shoulder straps would reflect a common and confident design technique that would bring legal practice closer to legislative practice. Typically, the term is used positively to indicate the desirable level of security often sought by lawyers, financial professionals, and executives, but it can be used as a way to criticize an overly cautious or conservative approach. For example, a lender that requires a security right in a guarantee and also seeks personal collateral could be criticized for needing a belt and shoulder straps, as could a lender that registers new privileges each time funds are disbursed, even if those payments are clearly covered by an original registered instrument.