The only possible interpretation of ‘the’ is all, not some nor any.

Turning from "authorized by law," we find another reason to disqualify special counsel as officers under the plain meaning of the Dictionary Act. Mainly, that

Headnote 13

Special counsel do not perform "the duties" of any office. The use of the definite article preceding both "duties" and "office" in the definition in the Dictionary Act, 1 U.S.C.S. § 1, restricts the court's interpretation of that language. The word "the" frequently (but not always) indicates a particular thing. It can also be used to refer to something generically, as may be the case with "the office." By way of example, officers include any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office in question--which could be the (Ohio) Office of Attorney General or some other public office. However, the word "the" that precedes "duties" has only one sensible construction--that it refers to a specific thing--all duties associated with the office in question. It would be unreasonable to construe "the," in that instance, to mean "a," "some" or "any." It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning. And it is normal usage that, in the absence of contrary indication, governs interpretation of texts. More like this Headnote

End Headnote 13

special counsel do not perform "the duties" of any office. The use of the definite article preceding both "duties" and "office" in the Dictionary Act's definition restricts our interpretation of that language. "[T]he word 'the' frequently (but not always) indicates 'a particular thing.'" NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. , 134 S. Ct. 2550, 2561, 189 L. Ed. 2d 538 (2014). It can also be used to refer to something generically, id., as may be the case with "the office." By way of example, officers include any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office in question—which could be the Office of Attorney General or some other public office. However, the word "the" that precedes "duties" has only one sensible construction—that [**22] it refers to a specific thing—all duties associated with the office in question. It would be unreasonable to construe "the," in that instance, to mean "a," "some" or "any." See, e.g., Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870, 876, 187 L. Ed. 2d 729 (2014) ("It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2034, 2042, 182 L. Ed. 2d 955 (2012) ("And it is normal usage that, in the absence of contrary indication, governs our interpretation of texts.").