Talk:Statutory interpretation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are at least four very similar articles: "Canons of Statutory Construction," "Legislative Intent," "Statutory Construction," and "Statutory Interpretation." They should be merged, because they all detail the same set of rules. Specifically, when a legislature writes a law, it uses the "Canons of Statutory Construction" to record its "Legislative Intent." When a court reviews a law, it uses the "Canons of Statutory Construction" as the first step in trying to determine the "legislative intent." We call that process "statutory interpretion." If, however, the text has more than one legitimate interpretation, then it is ambiguous (has no plain meaning from which to determine the legislature's intent). Accordingly, the court will then use alternative methods to determine the legislature's intent, such as researching the legislative history. -end.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.4.11.65 (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2006.

You have explained it clearly. I support the merge. "Legislative intent" is on the short list of things that come to mind when I think of principles of statutory interpretation. I frankly don't even comprehend the contrary approach. Are there major differences between US and non-US jurisdictions? Lagringa 10:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this page and the entry on statutory interpretation should be combined into a single entry, since the material is quite similar.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.58.215.167 (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2006.

Statutory construction and statutory interpretation are two different things. Please retain this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.216.173.38 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2006.

Statutory contruction and interprtation are the same, it is your explanation that are problematic. The plain meaning comes formt he founders are they sat writing the constitution. An ever breathing Living Consitution is not mention by your cite at all and htat is what is most mentioned or researched by novices today.

This sections seems unimportant, and this article is very biased against the canons and reflects a "living constitution" type approach. It should be heavily edited to be more objectionable toward textualists.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.62.91.101 (talk • contribs) .

Legislative intent is one of several methods of statutory interpretation/construction. Those two -- statutory interpretation & statutory construction -- need to be merged.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.109.204.212 (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2006.

Legislative History is a topic large enough to justify its independence. It's better to leave it as a link.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoobree (talk • contribs) 11:57, 24 April 2006.

Much too large of a topic to include. A section should be started on Loose Constructionist Interpretations, however.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.75.229.146 (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2006.

I think statutory interpretation should be the main article. The section that is called "canons of statutory interpretation" discusses mostly textual canons. No one has posted anything about the various levels of statutory abstraction or some of the other popular methods of examining statutes. I agree with the first comment, that legislative intent is but one level of interpretation. New Textualists will avoid legislative intent and history in most cases.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.249.254.44 (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2006.

I think legislative intent needs to remain a separate page. Perhaps there could be a paragraph blurb for each major theory of interpretation on the main Statutory Interpretation page, and then a link to separate pages dealing with each one. Textualism, originalism, legislative intent, policy-based analysis, and possibly one for deference to prior interpretations. Libertylaw 12:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Legislative intent and statutory interpration are different concepts and should be treated accordingly.

[edit] Trinity Church

An explanation of why I reverted Trinity Church - the case was decided against the plain meaning of the statute because the straightforward reading would go against the fundamental value of allowing free religious exercise. --Libertylaw 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for introducing an error! Wareh 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I actually think the Holy Trinity Church v. United States page is inaccurate, or at least misleading, but I don't have time to fix it during exams. --Libertylaw 12:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another one?

IANAL, but I recall from reading Stephen Breyer's book Active Liberty that he mentions a canon which states that statutes should be interpreted to give effect to every single word. Does this belong on the list, or is it already covered and I missed it? 121a0012 21:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)