Bryan Garner writes about English usage. With Antonin Scalia, he co-authored Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Here he explains "Some Misconceptions About Originalism." Anyone who believes judges should modify their decisions based on loyalty to a person or an ideology doesn't understand how the proper role of judges differs from that of legislators.
.... The idea behind originalism is as old as interpretation itself. In fact, the earliest statute on legal interpretation, from Scotland in 1427, made it a crime punishable at the king’s will to “interpreit...statutes wrangeouslie” or “utherwaies than the statute beares, and to the intent and effect, that they were maid for, and as the maker of them understoode.” ....The influential Emmerich de Vattel, the Swiss author of The Law of Nations (1758), a book that greatly influenced the Founding Fathers, wrote: “Languages vary incessantly, and the signification and force of words change with time. When an antient act is to be interpreted, we should then know the common use of the terms at the time when it was written." ....The basic idea has always been that a legal text should have a stable, enduring meaning—not a meaning that morphs unpredictably through time. Daniel Webster, the greatest American lawyer of the 19th century, said that “we must take the meaning of the Constitution as it has been solemnly fixed.” That was not just the prevalent notion in his day, but the only notion of which any contemporaneous trace can be found. .... (more)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. I will gladly approve any comment that responds directly and politely to what has been posted.