Is the typo in the 25th amendment significant?

Question

The fourth section of the 25th amendment to the US constitution provides for the president to be declared unfit involuntarily. The first of its two paragraphs describes the declaration itself, made by the vice president along with "a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide."

The second paragraph describes a mechanism for the president to resume the "powers and duties" of the office by declaring "that no inability exists." This paragraph also establishes a mechanism for "the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" to challenge the president's declaration.

This question is about the difference in the designation of those whose action is required along with the vice president. The first paragraph uses the word "departments," plural, and the second uses "department," singular.

I suppose that the second paragraph was added during the debates on the amendment, and that the use of the singular in the second paragraph is probably an error.

Would courts be likely conclude that the difference is unintentional? If not, does the use of the singular change the meaning of the phrase significantly?

I am especially interested in answers that look at the the legislative history of the amendment to support or refute the hypothesis that the second paragraph was an addition to the original form of the text. As far as I can tell, the relevant congressional documents are not available online for the 1960s.

Answer 1

Prologue, a magazine published by the National Archives, had an article about the missing S back in 2012.

In short, the problem was due to a scrivener's error. Congress recognized the error at roughly the same time it submitted the amendment to the states but decided it was too late to fix it:

There was a brief discussion of the possibility of recalling the joint resolution for reconsideration in each chamber, but Congress was operating under severe time pressures as it worked toward adjournment for the summer, and it was decided that the record of congressional debates and actions on successive versions of the joint resolution made the intent so clear that the missing s could not affect interpretation of the text. The proposed amendment was therefore allowed to go to the states in its imperfect form.

Given the basically undisputed nature of the error, I think it would be unlikely that courts would indulge an argument that "department" should be interpreted differently than "departments," at least in any way that would change the outcome of a dispute under the 25th Amendment.

Answer 2

At first glance, the Question appears to be rightly dismissed in bdb484's wholly reasonable Answer but law is law and English is English and surely we all remember how often the spirit is not made clear in the letter…

Here in the UK, we have a wholly separate law whose sole purpose is to change the word "the" in a previous law to "a". Please consider the ramifications in language of comparing "the" to "a", as against plural or singular "department(s)", and what knots a skilled lawyer could tie the courts in, for right or wrong.

As it happens our UK case is quite similar revealing, just like this Question, a huge difference in meaning between first and second references to the same thing.

For those who mind, the entire wording of the Public Order (Amendment) Act 1996 is:

An Act to amend the power of arrest of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

[17th October 1996]

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1 Power of arrest Section 5(4)(a) of the [1986 c. 64.] Public Order Act 1986 shall be amended by leaving out the word “the” and inserting the word “a”.

2 Citation This Act may be cited as the Public Order (Amendment) Act 1996.

A minxy little 101 words, carefully considered over 10 years, to change the law!

For those who really care, the original Public Order Act 1986 said:

"A constable may arrest a person without warrant if— (a) he engages in offensive conduct which the constable warns him to stop, and…" (blah la la)

Now please again consider both how slight in language and how huge in law is the difference between "the" and "a", and again, compare that to "department(s)"