Here's what the U.S. SUPREME COURT said about*the use of INCLUDES/INCLUDING & AND.
"The determining word is, of course the word 'including.' It may have the sense of addition, [221 U.S. 452, 465]** as we have seen, and of 'also;' but, we have also seen, 'may merely specify particularly that which belongs to the genus.' Hiller v. United States, 45 C. C. A. 229, 106 Fed. 73, 74. It is the participle of the word 'include,' which means, according to the definition of the Century Dictionary, (1) 'to confine within something; hold as in an inclosure; inclose; contain.' (2) 'To comprise as a part, or as something incident or pertinent; comprehend; take in; as the greater includes the less; . . . the Roman Empire included many nations.' 'Including,' being a participle, is in the nature of an adjective and is a modifier.
...
We have seen that the state urges that the word 'and' is always employed to express the relation of addition, and it is said, with words of emphasis, that Congress cannot be supposed to have been ignorant of its meaning. The supreme court of the state also gave special significance to the use of 'and,' as adding something to that which preceded. The court also considered that the word 'including' was used as a word of enlargement, the learned court being of opinion that such was its ordinary sense. With this we cannot concur. It is its exceptional sense, as the dictionaries and cases indicate." MONTELLO SALT CO. v. UTAH, 221 U.S. 452 (1911)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/221/452.html
Of course the CANONS of STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION say the SAME thing.
“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.* A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.* Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100.* Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another.* When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred.* Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 581
"Ab initio un excluso"*which means that what is*NOT INCLUDED is EXCLUDED.
*
"Inclusio unis est esclusio alterius."* This DOCTRINE decrees that where law EXPRESSLY describes the PARTICULAR situation to which it shall apply, an IRREFUTABLE INFERENCE MUST be drawn that what is OMITTED or EXCLUDED was INTENDED to be OMITTED or EXCLUDED.
*
The meaning or interpretation of a word can be gathered from the context or by reference to the meaning of the words associated with it. This rule of interpretation propounds that “a word is known from the company it keeps.” Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co., 367 US 303, 81 S Ct 1579, 307, 6 L Ed.2d 859, 863 (1961); or that “English words derive colour from those that surround them.” Bourne v Norwich Crematorium Ltd [1967] 1 WLR 691, 696, [1967] 2 All ER 576, 578
*
“The constructional problem is resolved by the second principle Alloyd overlooks, which is that a word is known by the company it keeps (the doctrine of noscitur a sociis). This rule we rely upon to avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words, thus giving "unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress." Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U.S. 303, 307 (1961). ” Gustafson v. Alloyd Co. (93-404), 513 US 561 (1995).
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/513/561.html
"The wording of §1 calls for the application of the maxim ejusdem generis, the statutory canon that "[w]here general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words. 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction §47.17 (1991); see also Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Train Dispatchers, 499 U. S. 117, 129 (1991)." CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. v. ADAMS, 532 US 105, 114-115 (2001)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/532/105.html
*
"Under the principle of ejusdem generis, when a general term follows a specific one, the general term should be understood as a reference to subjects akin to the one with specific enumeration. See Arcadia v. Ohio Power Co., 498 U.S. 73, 84 -85 (1990)." NORFOLK & WESTERN R. CO. v. TRAIN DISPATCHERS, 499 US 117 (1991)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/499/117.html
And even the IRS (who like the legislature uses INCLUDES & INCLUDING to BS people) ADMITS in the CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS:
27 CFR 72.11* Meaning of terms.
*** As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires, terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section. Words in the plural form shall include the singular, and vice versa, and words importing the masculine gender shall include the feminine. The terms ``includes'' and ``including'' do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...27cfr72.11.htm
