Content deleted Content added
m moved Drafting error to Legislative drafting error |
m correct cite |
||
Line 3:
Commonly, the error will have something to do with cross-referencing of statutes. For instance, the U.S. statutes pertaining to probation had a drafting error which caused the section about revocation of probation for failing to submit to a drug test to incorrectly reference a section about domestic violence.<ref>{{cite court|litigants=United States v. Coatoam|date=2001|court=CA6 Ohio|vol=245|reporter=F3d|opinion=553|url=http://openjurist.org/245/f3d/553/united-states-of-america-v-walter-coatoam}}</ref> By clerical error, the law also omitted an accurate reference to community confinement.<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.ussc.gov/2004guid/7b1_3.htm|title=USSG 7B1.3, Footnote to Application Note 5|year=2004}}</ref><ref>{{cite court|litigants=United States v. D'Amario|date=2005|court=CA1 RI|vol=412|reporter=F3d|opinion=253}}</ref> However, in both cases, courts upheld Congressional intent.
Sometimes courts refuse to apply [[legislative intent]] that conflicts with the text of the law, as in the case of the [[Virginia General Assembly]] accidentally repealing the exemptions of almost all industries from the statute requiring employers to allow employees not to work on the [[Sabbath]]. It was necessary for the legislature to re-assemble for a special session to correct the error.<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/us/virginia-lawmakers-trudge-back-to-scene-to-repair-error.html?pagewanted=1|title=Virginia Lawmakers Trudge Back to Scene to Repair Error|author=Bacon, Lisa|date=July 14, 2004|publisher=New York Times}}</ref>
==References==
| |||