Statutory interpretation problems usually involve vagueness, not ambiguity

Evidence

A word is ambiguous when it is susceptible to two (or more) quite distinct meanings, as when we are unsure whether the word “bank” refers to the side of the river or the place where we keep our money or whether a “vessel” is something into which we put water or something that floats upon it, but this is rarely an issue in statutory interpretation. In interpreting statutes or other legal texts, the problem is usually that the words have no clear meaning rather than one or another clear meaning, and the correct word for this phenomenon is “vagueness” and not “ambiguity.” — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 689

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sharpens the distinction between ambiguity (multiple distinct meanings) and vagueness (no clear meaning at all).
• XREF: connects to: Text interpretation is a consequence-sensitive act, not a logical exercise. — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 97; Vague legal standards invite courts to beg the question — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1169; Executive discretion beyond statute is justified by law’s unavoidable incompleteness — John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 197 (+3 more)

Related

• Required statutory clarity varies with the literacy of its addressees (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Text interpretation is a consequence-sensitive act, not a logical exercise. #expands (0.60) — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 97
• Vague legal standards invite courts to beg the question #expands (0.50) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1169