palani
3rd March 2016, 04:03 PM
Legislature can be a source of what is meant by word constructions (combinations of words). Here is an example
Washington
Title 82 RCW deals with EXCISE TAXES
RCW 82.04.200
"In this state," "within this state."
"In this state" or "within this state" includes all federal areas lying within the
exterior boundaries of the state.
Applying this word construction to Wisconsin code results in an understandable bit of code
Wisconsin
29.011 Title to wild animals.
(1)The legal title to, and the custody and protection of, all wild animals within this
state is vested in the state for the purposes of regulating the enjoyment, use, disposition,
and conservation of these wild animals.
What is that you now perceive? Wild animals may be within a federal area within the EXTERIOR boundaries of the state but for purpose of regulating them the feds are bequeathing Wisconsin ('the state') legal title.
Now that begs a question. If wild animals can be found within the EXTERIOR boundaries of Wisconsin what else can be found there? I think I have a clue but what they are leading to is a concept where everything found in what you perceive to be 'the state' is not where you really think it is. If you are a U.S. citizen you are within this state (a federal area) but if you are not a U.S. citizen lo and behold you are NOT within this state. But then in Wisconsin wild animals are ahead of you 'cause this code says the feds are relinquishing legal title and in practical application the feds are always going to presume legal title (to YOU!!!).
Washington
Title 82 RCW deals with EXCISE TAXES
RCW 82.04.200
"In this state," "within this state."
"In this state" or "within this state" includes all federal areas lying within the
exterior boundaries of the state.
Applying this word construction to Wisconsin code results in an understandable bit of code
Wisconsin
29.011 Title to wild animals.
(1)The legal title to, and the custody and protection of, all wild animals within this
state is vested in the state for the purposes of regulating the enjoyment, use, disposition,
and conservation of these wild animals.
What is that you now perceive? Wild animals may be within a federal area within the EXTERIOR boundaries of the state but for purpose of regulating them the feds are bequeathing Wisconsin ('the state') legal title.
Now that begs a question. If wild animals can be found within the EXTERIOR boundaries of Wisconsin what else can be found there? I think I have a clue but what they are leading to is a concept where everything found in what you perceive to be 'the state' is not where you really think it is. If you are a U.S. citizen you are within this state (a federal area) but if you are not a U.S. citizen lo and behold you are NOT within this state. But then in Wisconsin wild animals are ahead of you 'cause this code says the feds are relinquishing legal title and in practical application the feds are always going to presume legal title (to YOU!!!).