Inevitable Shortcomings of Words: Vessels and other Contrivances

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.  A rose by any other name?

So, pray tell - what is a vessel?  I mean, practically, what does Congress mean when they say "vessel."  Do words matter?  Legislatures try to draft statutes to regulate a certain type of activity, but must use words to decribe the prohibition.  Times change - should the words governing our country change too?  [I'll leave the originalist/textualist/positivist debate to others, like Dorf On Law].

Next week, the Supreme Court will take on this case of "words" when they hear the case of Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach.  This case is generating a lot of buzz in the legal circles.  SCOTUSBLOG has good coverage, start with its post here.  My earlier posts, including briefs, are here, here and here.

1 U.S.C. §3 provides:

“Vessel” as including all means of water transportation.  The word “vessel” includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.

The challenge is that many things are capable of moving people or cargo across the water.  Propulsion is not a good test because cargo barges don't have the intrinsic ability to self-propel, yet all would agree that barges are "vessels."  Surfboards?  Outrigger canoes?

The overlay for this dispute is the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts.  While it seems ridiculous that the federal government would have jurisdiction over a surfboard, doesn't the shoe fit?

In the end, the practical must outweigh the academic, lest the academic lead to a ridiculous result.  Some would just say that Congress must go back in and fix the statute and avoid the judicial legislating.  But, in the end, can words EVER fully define what is a vessel and what shouldn't be a vessel?  Propulsion test?  Navigation test?  Barges = vessel, surfboards=not a vessel; sailboats=vessel, houseboats=not a vessel?

My take - when initially constructed, or reconstructed, was the intent to use the watercraft for transport of passengers or cargo on the water.  The federal government should concern itself with the "transport" aspect of a marine vehicle, not whether it floats.  Thus, if intended to be used to transport, then it should be a vessel, regardless of its current outfit of equipment.  This would mean that surfboards and outrigger canoes would indeed fit the definition, (hopefully the regulating authorities opt out of regulating these de jure vessels).  Floating restaurants, permanently affixed casino-riverboats, and the like were not intended (at construction or reconstruction) to be used to transport passengers or cargo, so they would escape the federal jurisdiction.

What are words for anyway?

 

Comments

[Kalani Perry]

"What is a vessel?" To quote the current President of the World/former US President Clinton, "I guess that all depends on what your definition of 'is' is."