![]() He writes that "a proper textualist" would have decided differently: "The phrase 'uses a gun' fairly connoted use of a gun for what guns are normally used for, that is, as a weapon. 281, 319 (1988) Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in partĪs an illustrative example, Justice Scalia refers to a case in which the law provided for a longer sentence when the defendant "uses a firearm" "during and in relation to" a "drug trafficking crime." In the case, the defendant had offered to trade an unloaded gun as barter for cocaine, and the majority (wrongly, in his view) took this meeting the standard for the enhanced penalty. The phrase "of foreign manufacture" is a common usage, well understood to mean "manufactured abroad." While looking up the separate word "foreign" in a dictionary might produce the reading the majority suggests, that approach would also interpret the phrase "I have a foreign object in my eye" as referring, perhaps, to something from Italy. Words, like syllables, acquire meaning not in isolation but within their context. The statute excludes only merchandise "of foreign manufacture," which the majority says might mean "manufactured by a foreigner" rather than "manufactured in a foreign country." I think not. Textualism looks to the ordinary meaning of the language of the text, but it looks at the ordinary meaning of the text, not merely the possible range of meaning of each of its constituent words (see Noscitur a sociis): ![]() Hill, which looked to the dictionary definitions of words, without reference to common public understanding or context. A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means." Similarly, textualism should not be confused with the " plain meaning" approach, a simpler theory used prominently by the Burger Court in cases such as Tennessee Valley Authority v. I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be. To illustrate this, we may quote Justice Scalia, who warns that "extualism should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism, a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute. Nevertheless, although a textualist could be a strict constructionist, these are distinctive views. Strict constructionism is often misused by laypersons and critics as a synonym for textualism. Manning, "Textualism as a Nondelegation Doctrine", 97 Colum. These judges base their resistance to that interpretive practice on two major premises: first, that a 535-member legislature has no "genuine" collective intent concerning the proper resolution of statutory ambiguity (and that, even if it did, there would be no reliable basis for equating the views of a committee or sponsor with the "intent" of Congress as a whole) second, that giving weight to legislative history offends the constitutionally mandated process of bicameralism and presentment. ![]() Textualist judges have contended, with much practical impact, that courts should not treat committee reports or sponsors' statements as authoritative evidence of legislative intent. ![]() " The textualist cares about the statutory purpose to the extent that is suggested from the text. They look for the meaning "that a reasonable person would gather from the text of the law, placed alongside the remainder of the corpus juris. Textualists argue courts should read the words of a statutory text as any ordinary Member of Congress would have read them. We do not inquire what the legislature meant we ask only what the statutes mean." Textualism is often erroneously conflated with originalism, and was advocated by United States Supreme Court Justices such as Hugo Black and Antonin Scalia the latter staked out his claim in his 1997 Tanner Lecture: " is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver." Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., although not a textualist himself, well-captured this philosophy, and its rejection of intentionalism: "We ask, not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used. ![]() The textualist will "look at the statutory structure and hear the words as they would sound in the mind of a skilled, objectively reasonable user of words." The textualist thus does not give weight to legislative history materials when attempting to ascertain the meaning of a text. Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is based exclusively on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |