In his Sept. 25 letter, Morton Soule presented a convincing argument that Latin strengthens one’s general command of language.

An understanding of this so-called “dead” language is also helpful in understanding legal concepts. Of late, the expression “quid pro quo” has been used with a frequency not heard since Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of Hannibal Lecter. The direct translation seems innocuous: something for something. But in common law, it usually indicates that the “propriety or equity of the transaction is in question.”

In such a transaction, one party demands a concession from another party in return for a favor. The tendency is that the value of what is demanded and the sacrifice in providing it is greater than what is offered in return.

Indeed, vital military assistance may seem more valuable than an investigation into a debunked conspiracy theory. But when the imaginary findings of a trumped-up inquiry may sway the results of an election, the value of anti-tank weapons pales in comparison.

Res ipsa loquitur [the thing speaks for itself]: ex abusu potestatis [an abuse of power].

As the impeachment investigation progresses, news reports may contain more Latin expressions such as animus [intent], compos mentis [of sound mind]. mens rea [a guilty mind], and nolo contendere [acceptance of conviction without admitting guilt].

Following the principle of due process, iustitia ad id pervenit (justice will prevail) pro bono publico (for the good of the public). Only then can the healing process begin so that we can achieve our national motto: E pluribus unum.

Joe Wagner

Lyman

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Letter to the editor: Support the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act

Next »

Letter to the editor: Inspired by monarch butterfly’s migration