This Morning I Request to proofread and edit the following essay. However, I have not received any response yet. Very sad response.

THEFOODSTAYSINTHE KITCHEN

The interpretations for kids and their parents are very interesting because it seems that the arguments are witnessed among lawyers and judges in the court. Through the Ordinance 7.3, as the interpretations are very interesting and humorous in visualization, we can realize how the loopholescanbedevelopedthroughvariousargumentsandinterpretations andto confuse everyone for themeaningofthestatute. Eventhe Ordinance 7.3 is in a simple text with "no food," variousargumentsandinterpretations about"no food" created this ordinance very complicated to confuse everyone for implementing it in reality. Based on the true story,on March 23, 1986, the Ordinance 7.3 was made by Mother, the Supreme Lawmaker, that "From now on, no food may be eaten outside the kitchen "¹for findingmesses with"popcornkernel, pretzelcrumbs,andpiecesofcerealinthefamilyroom."¹Then several opinions and rulings challenged the intent of Ordinance throughout the story. Several opinions drew attention by successfully interpreting the Ordinance while other opinions and rulings became humorous and confusing to the intent of the Ordinance.

Uncle Tick, J., issued the following ruling on May 20,1986:

Defendant Charlie, age 10, is charged with violating Ordinance 7.3 ("the Rule") by bringing a double thick mint chocolate chip milkshake into the family room."¹ Based on the Ordinance 7.3, the defendant has violated the Rule¹because into the family room, defendant brings a double thick mint chocolate chip milkshake which is "food" as it contains protein, carbohydrate,

and/or fat.¹ Further, the purpose of the Rule is to prevent messes. Then this Ordinance would be

______________________________

1. Levin, HillelY. "The FoodStaysInTheKitchen:EverythingINeededToKnowAboutStatutoryInterpretationILearned ByTheTimeI Was Nine."GreenBag 2D,Vol. 12, pg. 337-344,2009. http://www.greenbag.org/v12n3/v12n3_levin.pdf

undermined if a double thick milkshake, which would make messes, would be permitted to be brought into the family room. Therefore, based on the Ordinance 7.3 and the decision, the charge of brining a double thick milkshake against defendant is appropriate. Thus, the May 20,1986 charge by Uncle Tick, J., best conforms to the Ordinance 7.3.

On the other hand, Grandma, Senior J., issued the following ruling on July 2, 1986:

Defendant Anne, age 14, is charged with violating Ordinance 7.3 by eating apple slices in the family room. ² The Ordinance explicitly refer to "popcorn kernels, pretzel crumbs, and pieces of cereal." ²As the Ordinance pertains only to messy foods, sliced apples, which are not messy and are not similar from the foods listed in the Ordinance, do not refer to the meaning of the Ordinance.² Further, it is significant that the consumption of healthy food such as sliced apples is supported and encouraged by this jurisdiction. ²Therefore, based on the Ordinance 7.3 and the decision, the charge of eating apple slices against dependent is not appropriate. Thus, the July 2, 1986 charge least conforms to the Ordinance 7.3.

The Ordinance by the "SupremeLawmaker", the interpretations, and the opinions are operated in such a way that we can find the direct democracy is involved in each turn. The "SupremeLawmaker" declares the Ordinance to implement the Rule of "no food" in the family room independently. This proclamation supports the direct democracy because there were no other citizens involved in this Ordinance. Direct democracy provides no check on the people's tendency toward a short-sighted politics of passion, punishment, and partiality.³The "Supreme

______________________________

1. Levin, HillelY. "The FoodStaysInTheKitchen:EverythingINeededToKnowAboutStatutoryInterpretationILearned ByTheTimeI Was Nine."GreenBag 2D,Vol. 12, pg. 337-344,2009.http://www.greenbag.org/v12n3/v12n3_levin.pdf
2. Eskridge, Frickey, and Garrett.LegislationAndStatutoryInterpretation.2nded. New York:Foundation Press, 2006,24

Lawmaker" did not consult with any other citizens and declared this proclamation independently, which leads to the "Direct democracy." ³

Additionally,the "SupremeLawmaker" focuses to justify actions that willfacilitate the achievement of her goals or the satisfaction of her desiresto implement the Ordinance of "no food" in the family room. Her arguments are practical in implementing the Rule of "no messes" in the family room. Her philosophical idea is to keep clean the family room.Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, and that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected.⁴ Thus, her ideology terns into the term "Pragmatism." ⁴

There were some confusions in the Ordinance 7.3. The "SupremeLawmaker" declaredthisstatute independently, but there was no due process to create it, and there was no preference to deliberate any opinion in creating the Ordinance. However, from a liberal point of view, this is the most direct way for individuals to express their preferences.⁵ Thus, the "SupremeLawmaker" expresses her preference in the most direct way to create the Ordinance 7.3, which leads into the intent of "Liberalism."

As we advance to the differentopinions fortheordinance 7.3, we find theJusticesprovide different verdicts based on differenttheoriesofstatutoryinterpretations. Whiledefendant Anne, age 14, is charged with violating Ordinance 7.3 by eating apple slices in the family room,²the Judge rules thateating apple slices in the family room does not come within the meaning of the

______________________________

1. McDermid, Douglas.Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: a Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource.Trent University Canada.https://iep.utm.edu/pragmati/
2. Eskridge, Frickey, and Garrett.LegislationAndStatutoryInterpretation.2nded. New York:Foundation Press, 2006,23

Ordinance.²Thus, every judge focuses on the Rule of Law idea⁶to come upwith a pattern of the pragmaticidea⁶ to findingthe common good intent of the law. ⁶ Here the democratic legitimacy idea⁶is also interpreted property because in the democratic legitimacy idea,theinterpreters ought to defer to decisions made by the popularly elected legislators who enact statutes.⁶

Stiffening up the old plain meaning rule, the new textualism holds that the only object of statutory interpretation is to determine the meaning of the text and that the only legitimate sources for this inquiry are text-based or -linked sources.⁷ThetextofOrdinance7.3, opinions, and theprecedentsbuild up a strongdebate tofindingthe common good. The precedents "that have now established that all beverages are permitted outside of the kitchen"⁸create a very complicated debate. However, the common good intent of "food" can be defined usingWebster's Dictionary which defines food to mean a "material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and fat process," and a double thick milkshake contains protein, carbohydrate, and/or fat.⁸ The court turns in the first place to its statutory dictionary, the interpretation section of the Act which it is construing and the general Interpretation Act.⁹When defendant Charlie, age 10, is charged with violating Ordinance 7.3 ("the Rule") by bringing a double thick milkshake into the family room,"¹this charge is resolved by the meaning of food usingWebster's Dictionary. Thus,the meaning of food fromWebster's Dictionary is best used to determine defendant has violated the Rule.

___________________________

1. Eskridge, Frickey, and Garrett.LegislationAndStatutoryInterpretation.2nded. New York:Foundation Press, 2006,220
2. Eskridge, Frickey, and Garrett.LegislationAndStatutoryInterpretation.2nded. New York:Foundation Press, 2006,235-236
3. Levin, HillelY. "The FoodStaysInTheKitchen:EverythingINeededToKnowAboutStatutoryInterpretationILearned ByTheTimeI Was Nine."GreenBag 2D,Vol. 12, pg. 337-344,2009. http://www.greenbag.org/v12n3/v12n3_levin.pdf
4. Willis,John.StatuteInterpretationina Nutshell: TheCanadian BarReview16,no.1.1938, 6

https://www.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/users/mdubber/Admin/14/2.8.%20Willis%2C%20Statutory%20Interpretation.pdf

Finally,the "SupremeLawmaker" amends the Ordinance 7.3 because she wants to clarify the intent of the new Ordinance. Her clarification is "No food, gum, or drink of any kind, on any occasion or in any form, is permitted in the family room."¹⁰However,the new Ordinance 7.3 will be difficult for the judicialpowerto properlegislative processandprocedure in the interpretation of the Rule. Even theearlierOrdinance 7.3isbeneficial, the new Ordinance 7.3 will move thejudicialsystem into the difficult legislativeprocess. If the Ordinance 7.3 has been amendedatthebeginning,manylegislativeprocedural distractions and precedentswould beavoided legally.

___________________________

1. Levin, HillelY. "The FoodStaysInTheKitchen:EverythingINeededToKnowAboutStatutoryInterpretationILearned ByTheTimeI Was Nine."GreenBag 2D,Vol. 12, pg. 337-344,2009. http://www.greenbag.org/v12n3/v12n3_levin.pdf