A matter requiring statutory interpretation is a question of law requiring de novo review, United States v. Hans,  USCA6 2583; 921 F.2d 81, 82 (6th Cir.1990), and the "starting point" for interpretation "is the language of the statute itself." Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.,  USSC 104; 447 U.S. 102, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 64 L.Ed.2d 766(1980). The statute is read as a whole and construed to give each word operative effect. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., USSC 18; 503 U.S. 30, 36 USSC 18; , 112 S.Ct. 1011, 1015 USSC 18; , 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992).III.
Let us analyse this statement'The statute is read as a whole and construed to give each word operative effect' that is taken from the above quote. This is an important statement and forms the basis of yet another powerful rule of construction that every word of a statute should be assigned some meaning and that nothing in the statute is surplus. The rule has been an extension of the presumption that we make in the case of drafting of statute that Congress is aware of the terms or the words employed in the statute meaning thereby that Parliament has selected the words with due care after analyzing its likely interpretation as per the prevailing rules of interpretation. These presumptions are necessary so that the entire fabric of the statutory language is understood in the light of the main purpose of the Act . We are concerned with what the legislators/congress has put in words rather than our expectations that what ought to have been put in words.The words employed in a statute speak for themselves.Words are small concept in themselves with no precision element contained in them. They get the coloring from the surrounding text that forms the context.