By Rebecca Heilweil
Rebecca Heilweil is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania.
Constituencies expect clarity from their legislation. While the drafters of law certainly can hold their own personal political stakes in keeping statutes vague‐ of which the Ninth Amendment is a great example‐ it is common expectation that the rhetoric of bills will, at the least, hold some sort of concrete meaning.
Yet, this rarely happens, which necessitates an appellate judiciary process to interpret and contextualize the laws produced by legal bodies. Furthermore, in addition to the interpretive debates that dominate the federal appellate court spheres, international governmental bodies must remember the politics of language, and translation, in crafting and applying international law.