Thread by @soychicka

Clearly, there needs to be a single point of reference for all legislation to reference - i.e. a legislative dictionary, where words like 'emergency' and 'crisis' and 'broadcast' are defined, clearly, with etymological roots where necessary, to simplify the code&obviate loopholes

And any nuance in specific uses of a term - i.e. a selected subset of specific events/technologies to which it is applied - can be outlined in new legislation, but can not exceed the limits of that word in its common usage across all legislation, as defined in the 'dictionary.'

And absent any nuances addressed in legislation, all legislation must apply to the broadest possible sense of the term.

There should be no loopholes because of linguistic ambiguity; in cases where there is, contemporaneous dictionaries, case law, and etymology should be construed to reveal the authors' intent.

Case in point: here's a decision from Kentucky that clearly defines what is - and is NOT - an emergency.

Glass v. Board. of Common Council of City of Frankfort
262 Ky. 471, 476 (Ky. Ct. App. 1936)

Similarly, the root of the term 'emergency' is 'emerg-', L 'emergere' "bring forth, bring to light," directly addresses the state of an instance wherein a condition EMERGES, suddenly rising up into collective consciousness.

At most, it can be an instance of a cyclical crisis.

But there is no question from a linguistic perspective that the term "emergency" and "emergence" by definition can NOT refer to a chronic situation, regardless of the severity of any involved threat - it's definition has been clear since the first MassBCol freemen voted in 1630.

If anyone wants to argue otherwise, I know many uninsured patients out there with chronic illnesses who could definitely make use of Trump's selective reframing of the term in the interest of literally saving their own lives,

extending the requirement for mandatory emergency treatment of all patients to include chemo, dialysis, and all number of important, life-saving, and expensive therapies and medications.

Is the GOP ready to bear the financial consequences of that decision?