by Jery Payne

By 1215, King John (of Robin Hood fame) had made just about everybody mad. He raised taxes and regularly levied huge fines on trumped-up charges. He seduced several of his subject’s wives and daughters — saying “no” to the king’s advances wasn’t wise. He murdered his nephew Arthur of Brittany. He starved a mother and son to death in the same cell. And he captured and killed scores of hostages. The Pope had even excommunicated him.

Many of the lords were so sick and tired of being abused that they rebelled, which usually ended up with a new king sitting on the throne. But someone (believed to be the Archbishop of Canterbury) had another idea: Why not make the king obey the law?

So on a muddy field at Runnymede, England, these lords forced the king to sign a treaty that limited his powers.

This treaty contained some interesting ideas. One provision required King John to “at once return the son of Llywelyn, [and] all Welsh hostages.” That may not have exactly reverberated throughout the ages, but probably was a relief to Llywelyn — who, incidentally, was John’s son-in-law. (Remember that the next time you bemoan the in-laws—at least they’re not holding your child hostage!)

Clause 40 held wider application: “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” A nice idea, but clause 39 got more specific about how that would be enforced:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

The medieval world had used trials and juries for some time, but this treaty made due process of the law a right.

Now it wasn’t always obeyed, and King John tried to repudiate it. But this idea of basic fairness wouldn’t go away. John’s son, Henry III, was forced to obey it. And in Britain, clause 39 is still in effect and still guarantees people the due process of the law.

At the time, the treaty was called the “Runnymede Charter,” but over time it became known as “Magna Carta” — Latin for “The Great Charter.”

But the Magna Carta’s greatest legacy isn’t the idea of due process; its greatest legacy lies in the idea that a king (or president or governor) can be made to obey a document. Those lords had actually created a type of constitution.

One of the lords who confronted King John on that muddy field was Saer de Quincy, the Earl of Winchester. Five centuries later, Saer de Quincy’s descendant, Josiah Quincy, went to London to warn another English king, George III, that another revolution was brewing and it would cost England her American colonies if she did not grant the colonists the same rights and privileges enjoyed in England. The Declaration of Independence accuses King George of “depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury,” which violated the Magna Carta. And John Adams agreed: “[H]ave not our kings broken magna carta thirty times?”

Quincy’s warning failed to convince the king. Quincy’s home, Massachusetts, and 12 other colonies, declared independence. This let to the Massachusetts Assembly appointing Quincy’s cousin, John Adams, to draw up the first constitution in the Americas.

John Adams wanted to make sure Massachusetts’s governors weren’t above the law. Not only did Adams draw inspiration from clause 39, but the very act of drafting a constitution can be traced to the precedent set by the Magna Carta. Adam’s constitution became very influential. The United States and 9 of the 13 states used Adam’s constitution as a model.

Interestingly, the monument in Runnymede commemorating the Magna Carta was actually dedicated, not by a British group, but by the American Bar Association.

After all, there wouldn’t be much point to a state legislature if the Governor didn’t feel the need to bother about the law.

Happy 800th anniversary Magna Carta!

by: Kurt Woock

The English language is rife with confusing words. In English classes, you likely studied various categories of linguistic confusion: homophones, heteronyms, homonyms, synonyms, antonyms. At the root of the confusion is the fact that words can have a lot in common, to the extent they deceive writers and readers into thinking the words are interchangeable.

Sometimes, a group of words signify a similar meaning, but with differing gradations or levels of emphasis. Those subtle differences allow writers to express nuance and help bring clarity to writing. Using these words incorrectly might blur the author’s true intent, but it won’t substantially alter the meaning.

However, in some cases, despite the similarities between words, an impassable chasm exists between the two meanings. Using these words interchangeably does alter the sentence’s substance.

Here are four word pairs that are commonly mistaken as synonyms when, in fact, each word expresses a distinct idea:

Impact-Effect

Impact and its variations (impacted, impacting, etc.) have become some of the most ubiquitous buzzwords today. You’ll see it (mis)used in writing of all types. In most cases, effect is the better option.

Impact, whether used as a noun or a verb, means the moment two objects collide. It means strong, often violent force. Strictly speaking, its scope in time is limited to the very moment of…you guessed it…impact.

Effect is a broader term that means the consequences or results stemming from an action. Rather than focusing tightly on the singular moment in which a sudden change occurs, it is oriented toward changes that occur after the initial point of inflection, and without any cap on time.

Consider this sentence: “The group will study the impact the construction will have on the neighborhood.”

In this case, effect would be a better choice. Construction does not collide with anything, nor is it sudden or violent. Instead, the author intends to say something about resulting changes (whether short-, medium-, or long-term) that will occur because of the construction.

Although-While

Although has a meaning similar to “despite that fact that…”. Often it is used to dispel a possible assumption the reader might have.

Example: Although I like most vegetables, I don’t like peas.

The word doesn’t give most people problems, but it’s important to understand the particulars of although because its cousin, while, tends to trip up writers. While is a function of time. It shows that two events occur concurrently:

Example: I went to the park while I was on lunch break.

Try substituting the word “when” for while whenever you use it. If the sentence still makes sense, you’re likely using while right.

While is often used where although would be a more precise choice. Oddly enough, you’ll rarely see although as an incorrect substitution for while…perhaps an indication that the two aren’t interchangeable.

Here’s a sentence in which although would have been a more precise choice:

While the Broncos are a very good football team this year, I still think the team from ’98 could beat them.

Here’s a similar sentence in which while is perfectly fine:

While the Broncos are taking the field for the first time this season, their fans are surely going to be loud.

Since-Because

Because shows causation or association. Use if you can replace with “as a result of the fact that…”.

Example: Because I live in Denver, I can easily go to the mountains.

Example: I need a lawyer because I am in trouble.

Since shows that a period of time has elapsed.

Example: It’s been five years since I’ve been to Texas.

The two words, side by side:

1. Since you’ve been gone, I can breathe for the first time.
2. Because you’ve been gone, I can breathe for the first time.

These two samples show how a sentence’s meaning can change, depending on word choice. In the first example, using “since” shows that the writer is emphasizing the time that has passed between two events (and is not necessarily the cause of either). The person who has vacated the author’s presence might or might not be related to the increase in the author’s ability to breathe. The departure is simply something used to mark time. Perhaps the other person’s departure simply coincided with the opening of a few windows. You likely hear similar constructions daily: “Since lunch, my phone hasn’t stopped ringing”; “I haven’t been able to concentrate since I woke up.” In both these cases, the writer is trying to define a period of time, not a cause.

In the second example, “because” suggests that the breathing is directly related to the person leaving.

May-Might

When you were a child, you probably learned the difference between “may” and “can”. In recent years, OLLS has emphasized understanding the particular nuances of the terms “may”, “must”, and “shall” to express statutory requirements more clearly. However, the distinction between “may” and “might” is discussed less frequently.

May is best used to show that an action is dependent upon someone first granting permission. Take the following sentence:

“You may go on a short vacation during session if you are on top of your workload.”

Might is best used to show that a particular outcome, situation, or action comes about by chance.

The sentence “It might rain today” expresses might correctly. To say “it may rain today” would be incorrect. The rain does not occur because of any rational actor’s choosing, nor does it occur because it was given permission to do so.

Sometimes, both words can make sense in a sentence. However, this does not mean that both sentences mean the same thing. For example:

Alice may vote.

Alice might vote.

In the first example, the writer is expressing that Alice meets all the requirements to vote: She is 18, etc. However, it technically says nothing about the likelihood that she will do so. She might just stay home and watch TV. The second sentence considers just that—the chances that she’ll vote.

Use the distinctions found among these words to make your writing as clear as you can. Although we can write well, we don’t always. While we write, we too often choose the first word that comes to mind. We may choose whichever words we want, but we might not always choose the best ones. Because we strive to write as clearly as possible, we must be aware of this. Since you began reading this article, perhaps you’ve become more aware of the unintended effects that words such as “impact” can have.

by Jery Payne

Imagine that you get in your car, start the engine, and say “Take me to work.” Then, you begin reading the latest news while drinking your coffee. Thirty minutes later, you look up because the car is parking.

Does that sound nice? (more…)

by Jason Gelender

As of August 29, 2013, eleven Northeastern and Eastern Colorado counties (Cheyenne, Elbert, Kit Carson, Lincoln, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, Weld, and Yuma) and Moffat County in the Northwestern corner of Colorado have expressed interest in seceding from Colorado and forming the new state of North Colorado. Ten of the counties will submit the following ballot question to their voters at the November, 2013 election: (more…)

by Patti Dahlberg

Thirty-six years ago, Colorado became the first state in the country to allow a taxpayer to “check-off” a voluntary contribution to a state program. That’s right — the Colorado Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Fund became, in 1977, the first state income tax check-off fund in the United States. Today, across the country and in nearly every state, there are hundreds of check-off funds. Colorado was also the first state to have a collaborative, statewide public awareness campaign — Checkoff Colorado — supported by all of the nonprofit programs that are included on the state income tax form. (more…)

by Julie Pelegrin

If you’re starting work on legislation for next year or you just have some questions and are interested in information on specific policy areas, there are several resources available to you during the legislative interim. (more…)