How to interpret a statement consisting of two ORs?

I found this statement on a newspaper that is the subject of a recent controversy:

"no guarantee or loan shall be given or raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs"

There are two possible interpretations:

"(no guarantee shall be given) or (no loan shall be raised) by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs"

OR

(no guarantee or loan) shall be (given or raised) by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs"

I am confused. Which should be the correct interpretation. I am looking for answers that provide references, not personal opinions. Thanks.

Since “guarantees” are not ordinarily “raised” (except in cases where they are increased) and “loans” are not “given” (if you “give” it, it's not a loan) your first interpretation is closest. What the draftsman almost certainly means is:

No guarantee shall be given by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs,
AND
no loan shall be raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs.

(Note, by the way, that “any” here is a mistake for “some”, and it really wants a few more words.)

But he doesn't want to repeat that long string “by the ... concurs”; so he tries to fudge his way through by using the “No X or Y” construction; and he ends up with an awkward sentence which says what your second interpretation admirably describes.

It probably doesn't much matter; but it's slovenly.

I'm afraid I can't give you any references—I never owned the manuals I worked with—but thirty years ago I spent three years drafting pleadings and working with my principal, an arbitrator, to figure out just how to interpret bad legal drafting in order to reach a decision; so I know a little bit about it.