Talk:Statutory interpretation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 13 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): J.perales1121.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to insert sub-categories in General Principles
The general principles in its current form is heavily based on the US practice and may inadvertently mislead those who come from a different school of interpretation and would not serve the 'objectivism' purpose of wikipedia. Therefore, I suggest that we club the current general principles under a sub-category with the title U.S.A and add other country-specific categories. I am going to go forward and insert a section within the Indian body of interpretation. I suggest that others try to include the practice followed in other countries. Consequently, once we have a substantive collection, the common principles can be clubbed under a renewed 'General principles' while the rest can be grouped under 'country-specific principles'. Joel a joseph (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Difference between interpretation and construction
We can include the difference between interpretation and construction which, though has been exclusively relegated to the academic realm holds a special significance in understanding the concept of interpretation. Joel a joseph (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge
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.

One more article to be merged into this is Judicial interpretation. That one is reference in the article for Purposive rule. In addition it seems to have a copyright problem. So an easy way to solve that would be to redirect Judicial Interpretation to Statutory Interpretation and kill to birds with one stone. I will redirect the reference in Purposive rule to here anyway. Ernie (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Aren't there more than just what's listed?
Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant — Subsequent laws repeal those before enacted to the contrary. Shouldn't we have them all? Foofighter20x (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Ties in with the merge discussion above. Found another long lost article that should be included in this article. Foofighter20x (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Charming Betsy v. Charming Betsey Doctrine
There is some confusion about the correct spelling of Betsy or Betsey. Google reports thousands of results for both but the correct title for the doctrine or cannon is Betsy. Lexis-Nexis, West-Law, and Bulk.Resource.org all indicate the proper caption of the case is ALEXANDER MURRAY v. The Schooner CHARMING BETSY. Only Justia lists the caption as ALEXANDER MURRAY v. The Schooner CHARMING BETSEY. A full text search of the Justia opinion find both spellings. Full text searches of Lexis-Nexis, WestLaw, and Bulk.Resource.org opinions reveal on the the Betsy spelling.

Further the Supreme Courts website includes a listing of cases, the date they were argued and the date they were decided. Page 4 of this document lists:

"64   Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy............................Mar. 1, 1803, Feb. 9-10,13-15, 1804..................Feb. 22, 1804"

This is strong evidence that the correct spelling of the doctrine is Betsy not Betsey.

Rule of Lenity
Rule of Lenity redirects here. It's not the same though, so I'm thinking about breaking it out unless there are objections. Piratejosh85 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Not just the courts
In my (European) perception, not just the courts but anybody applying (statutory) rules engages in interpretation - which actually means nothing else than "assess the meaning". Of course, courts are right by definition, while anybody else may be wrong. Rbakels (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

US Perspective
This article gives a heavily US-biased view on a topic of importance in all nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.48.202 (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)