It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers

F] requently words of general meaning are used in a statute, words broad enough to include an act in question, and yet a consideration of the whole legislation, or of the circumstances surrounding its enactment, or of the absurd results which follow from giving such broad meaning to the words, makes it unreasonable to believe that the legislator intended to include the …

William Lee Miller, "The Ghost of Freedoms Past," Washington Post National Weekly Edition, October 13, 1986, pp. 23–24. 90.

We also note that this Court's adherence to the "avoid absurd results" canon of statutory interpretation is consistent with the traditional jurisprudential approach of American courts.

That choice has origins in the government's solicitude for Christianity, in what was once widely viewed as "a Christian nation."

We may look to the reason for the enactment and inquire into its antecedent history and give it effect in accordance with its design and purpose, sacrificing, if necessary, the literal meaning in order that the purpose may not fail

Rather than controverting legislative power, the absurd results doctrine functions to preserve legislative intent when it is narrowly applied.

—statute prohibiting prepayment of transportation of alien into United States to perform service of any kind held inapplicable to church's contract to bring resident of England to render service as rector and pastor, even though contract was "within the letter" of statute

—"however broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within the letter, is not within the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute."

[CITATION] ZUNI PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST. v. DEPARTMENT OFEDUCATION

[CITATION] Appointments Clause of the Constitution,” Pub. Citizen v. US Dep’t of Justice