When the Law Is Silent Jurisprudence
17. Rule of Plain Meaning and Doctrine of Absurdity: “Follow the clear meaning of the legal text, unless a simple textual meaning requires an absurd result or indicates an error on the part of the author.” 578 The pre-litigation application of the privilege not to incriminate oneself was supported by Ibrahim v. R.  AC 599, according to which the accused`s confession or confession to the police was admissible as evidence only if the prosecution could prove that it was voluntary. A confession is voluntary only if it is made in the exercise of a free decision to speak or remain silent: On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Salinas v. Texas states that a person must explicitly invoke the Fifth Amendment right to “remain silent” before arrest, otherwise selective silence can be used against them in court.  Where Congress intends a bill to repeal a previous law or a section of the law as a whole, it usually says so directly in the repeal act.201 There are other occasions when Congress intends a bill to replace a previous law to the extent of the conflict, but intends that the previous law remain in force for other purposes. Again, this is often said, usually in a section titled “Implications for Existing Law,” “Building with Other Laws,” or similar: “It can be strongly assumed that Congress will specifically address the wording of the law books it wishes to amend.” 202 Congress may, if it wishes, transpose state law into federal law.137 However, federal law is generally uniform throughout the country,138 and there is a presumption that “when Congress passes a law. It does not intend to make its application subject to State law. 139 It is assumed that Congress passes laws with full knowledge of the existing common law. When enacting legislation, the associated judicial law (common law) is deemed to remain in force and operate in conjunction with the new law, unless there is a clear indication to the contrary. When Congress filed civil lawsuits for violations of antitrust laws and the Influence of Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the courts adopted common law principles of “immediate cause” to determine liability.
The conclusion that the damage would not have occurred “without” the infringement is insufficient; As in the case of common law actions, a more direct and immediate connection between injury and injury must be demonstrated.120 Similarly, when Congress passed the common law on the renunciation of property under the bankruptcy act, it was assumed that when Congress passed the common law on the renunciation of property, he had adopted all the conclusions and exceptions made by the judges that accompanied the waiver law: “The normal rule of legal interpretation is this: That if Congress intends to enact a law to facilitate the interpretation of a judicial system, that makes that intention specific. 121 In another bankruptcy case, the Court stated that “we will not interpret the insolvency code in such a way that it […] In practice, there was no clear indication that Congress intended to make such a deviation. 122 The Court also held that, in declaring a patent to be presumed valid, Congress had at the same time adopted the common law rule that the presumed validity of a patent can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.123 Scalia & Garner, op. cit. cit., note 532, p. 69. See also Eskridge et al., op. cit. cit., note 532, p.
1196. See for example Perrin. v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979) (“A fundamental canon of legal interpretation is that, unless otherwise defined, words are interpreted so as to assume their ordinary, contemporary, and common meaning.”). See also Scalia & Garner, supra note 532, p. 78 (“Words must be given the meaning they had when the text was adopted”); Perrin, 444 U.S. at 42 (“[W]e look at the ordinary meaning of the word. at the time Congress enacted the law. »). In determining whether Congress has “spoken directly,” there is plenty of room between explicit delegation to a body to deal with a particular problem and explicit legislative language that legally solves the problem. Inaccuracies in a question may reflect congressional oversight, a lack of anticipation of what might happen, a political compromise, an implicit assumption that the vacuum would be filled by the agency with technical expertise, or other considerations.