259:"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.
31:
219:
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'.
85:
64:
95:
171:
22:
593:
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
325:
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
433:
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
218:
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
278:
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?
414:
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
258:
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
594:
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.
183:
665:
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.
735:
238:
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.
725:
35:
740:
533:
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?
356:
Legislative intent is one of several methods of statutory interpretation/construction. Those two -- statutory interpretation & statutory construction -- need to be merged.
415:
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.
720:
597:
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:
418:
399:
377:
359:
337:
310:
292:
262:
334:
biased against the canons and reflects a "living constitution" type approach. It should be heavily edited to be more objectionable toward textualists.
195:
485:
the plain meaning of the statute because the straightforward reading would go against the fundamental value of allowing free religious exercise. --
730:
147:
750:
289:
I agree that this page and the entry on statutory interpretation should be combined into a single entry, since the material is quite similar.
137:
505:
403:
363:
314:
296:
422:
692:
601:
64 Murray v. Schooner
Charming Betsy............................Mar. 1, 1803, Feb. 9-10,13-15, 1804..................Feb. 22, 1804
349:
755:
266:
715:
44:
646:
Rule of Lenity redirects here. It's not the same though, so I'm thinking about breaking it out unless there are objections.
745:
561:
389:
108:
69:
396:
Much too large of a topic to include. A section should be started on Loose
Constructionist Interpretations, however.
571:
Ties in with the merge discussion above. Found another long lost article that should be included in this article.
300:
407:
367:
318:
50:
426:
576:
557:
467:
447:
374:
Legislative
History is a topic large enough to justify its independence. It's better to leave it as a link.
345:
244:
224:
112:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
688:
270:
696:
651:
307:
Statutory construction and statutory interpretation are two different things. Please retain this article.
443:
Legislative intent and statutory interpration are different concepts and should be treated accordingly.
240:
220:
385:
341:
454:. In addition it seems to have a copyright problem. So an easy way to solve that would be to redirect
21:
462:
and kill to birds with one stone. I will redirect the reference in Purposive rule to here anyway.
381:
572:
553:
463:
203:
187:
174:
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between
671:
647:
631:
508:
page is inaccurate, or at least misleading, but I don't have time to fix it during exams. --
552:— Subsequent laws repeal those before enacted to the contrary. Shouldn't we have them all?
620:
509:
486:
435:
605:
This is strong evidence that the correct spelling of the doctrine is Betsy not Betsey.
529:
524:
451:
685:
This article gives a heavily US-biased view on a topic of importance in all nations.
709:
534:
280:
199:
700:
675:
655:
580:
537:
512:
499:
489:
471:
438:
283:
248:
228:
207:
667:
84:
63:
170:
94:
496:
100:
90:
481:
An explanation of why I reverted Trinity Church - the case was decided
736:
Knowledge (XXG) level-4 vital articles in Society and social sciences
434:
analysis, and possibly one for deference to prior interpretations.
113:
15:
726:
Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in Society and social sciences
632:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf
621:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/6/6.US.64.html
214:
Proposal to insert sub-categories in General Principles
741:
C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
330:
This sections seems unimportant, and this article is
165:
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
542:
234:Difference between interpretation and construction
549:Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant
8:
450:. That one is reference in the article for
446:One more article to be merged into this is
589:Charming Betsy v. Charming Betsey Doctrine
543:Aren't there more than just what's listed?
58:
196:Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment
613:
194:Above undated message substituted from
60:
19:
721:Knowledge (XXG) level-4 vital articles
495:Okay, sorry for introducing an error!
7:
506:Holy Trinity Church v. United States
106:This article is within the scope of
116:and the subjects encompassed by it.
49:It is of interest to the following
179:
175:
14:
523:IANAL, but I recall from reading
504:No worries. I actually think the
182:. Further details are available
169:
93:
83:
62:
29:
20:
142:This article has been rated as
122:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Law
731:C-Class level-4 vital articles
439:12:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
284:10:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
581:09:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
751:High-importance law articles
656:15:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
538:21:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
513:12:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
500:02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
490:01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
472:07:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
208:10:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
772:
148:project's importance scale
701:23:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
562:06:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
141:
78:
57:
756:WikiProject Law articles
460:Statutory Interpretation
249:17:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
229:17:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
125:Template:WikiProject Law
676:06:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
456:Judicial Interpretation
448:Judicial interpretation
429:) 10:47, 26 April 2006.
410:) 21:12, 24 April 2006.
392:) 11:57, 24 April 2006.
370:) 18:39, 17 April 2006.
321:) 14:53, 1 August 2006.
716:C-Class vital articles
603:
303:) 07:40, 4 April 2006.
273:) 01:13, 29 June 2006.
599:
421:comment was added by
402:comment was added by
380:comment was added by
362:comment was added by
340:comment was added by
313:comment was added by
295:comment was added by
265:comment was added by
186:. Student editor(s):
43:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
36:level-4 vital article
746:C-Class law articles
661:Not just the courts
326:by novices today.
184:on the course page
45:content assessment
691:comment added by
430:
411:
393:
371:
353:
322:
304:
274:
162:
161:
158:
157:
154:
153:
763:
703:
634:
629:
623:
618:
416:
397:
375:
357:
335:
308:
290:
260:
210:
181:
177:
173:
130:
129:
126:
123:
120:
103:
98:
97:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
16:
771:
770:
766:
765:
764:
762:
761:
760:
706:
705:
686:
683:
663:
644:
639:
638:
637:
630:
626:
619:
615:
591:
569:
567:Merger proposal
545:
521:
479:
417:—The preceding
398:—The preceding
376:—The preceding
358:—The preceding
336:—The preceding
309:—The preceding
291:—The preceding
261:—The preceding
256:
236:
216:
193:
176:11 January 2021
167:
144:High-importance
127:
124:
121:
118:
117:
109:WikiProject Law
99:
92:
73:High‑importance
72:
40:
30:
12:
11:
5:
769:
767:
759:
758:
753:
748:
743:
738:
733:
728:
723:
718:
708:
707:
682:
681:US Perspective
679:
662:
659:
643:
642:Rule of Lenity
640:
636:
635:
624:
612:
611:
607:
590:
587:
585:
568:
565:
544:
541:
530:Active Liberty
525:Stephen Breyer
520:
517:
516:
515:
502:
478:
477:Trinity Church
475:
452:Purposive rule
404:207.75.229.146
364:68.109.204.212
329:
315:131.216.173.38
297:207.58.215.167
287:
286:
255:
252:
235:
232:
215:
212:
166:
163:
160:
159:
156:
155:
152:
151:
140:
134:
133:
131:
105:
104:
88:
76:
75:
67:
55:
54:
48:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
768:
757:
754:
752:
749:
747:
744:
742:
739:
737:
734:
732:
729:
727:
724:
722:
719:
717:
714:
713:
711:
704:
702:
698:
694:
690:
680:
678:
677:
673:
669:
660:
658:
657:
653:
649:
641:
633:
628:
625:
622:
617:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
595:
588:
586:
583:
582:
578:
574:
573:Foofighter20x
566:
564:
563:
559:
555:
554:Foofighter20x
551:
550:
540:
539:
536:
532:
531:
526:
518:
514:
511:
507:
503:
501:
498:
494:
493:
492:
491:
488:
484:
476:
474:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
444:
441:
440:
437:
431:
428:
424:
423:24.249.254.44
420:
412:
409:
405:
401:
394:
391:
387:
383:
379:
372:
369:
365:
361:
354:
351:
347:
343:
339:
333:
327:
323:
320:
316:
312:
305:
302:
298:
294:
285:
282:
277:
276:
275:
272:
268:
264:
253:
251:
250:
246:
242:
241:Joel a joseph
233:
231:
230:
226:
222:
221:Joel a joseph
213:
211:
209:
205:
201:
197:
191:
189:
188:J.perales1121
185:
180:13 March 2021
172:
164:
149:
145:
139:
136:
135:
132:
115:
111:
110:
102:
96:
91:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
37:
27:
23:
18:
17:
693:82.17.48.202
687:— Preceding
684:
664:
648:Piratejosh85
645:
627:
616:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
584:
570:
548:
547:
546:
528:
522:
519:Another one?
482:
480:
459:
455:
445:
442:
432:
413:
395:
373:
355:
342:67.62.91.101
331:
328:
324:
306:
288:
257:
237:
217:
192:
168:
143:
128:law articles
107:
51:WikiProjects
34:
267:210.4.11.65
114:legal field
710:Categories
609:References
510:Libertylaw
487:Libertylaw
436:Libertylaw
101:Law portal
39:is rated
689:unsigned
535:121a0012
527:'s book
419:unsigned
400:unsigned
390:contribs
378:unsigned
360:unsigned
350:contribs
338:unsigned
311:unsigned
293:unsigned
281:Lagringa
263:unsigned
200:PrimeBOT
668:Rbakels
483:against
382:Zoobree
146:on the
41:C-class
47:scale.
497:Wareh
464:Ernie
254:Merge
28:This
697:talk
672:talk
652:talk
577:talk
558:talk
468:talk
427:talk
408:talk
386:talk
368:talk
346:talk
332:very
319:talk
301:talk
271:talk
245:talk
225:talk
204:talk
178:and
138:High
458:to
352:) .
198:by
119:Law
70:Law
712::
699:)
674:)
654:)
579:)
560:)
470:)
388:•
348:•
247:)
227:)
206:)
190:.
695:(
670:(
650:(
575:(
556:(
466:(
425:(
406:(
384:(
366:(
344:(
317:(
299:(
269:(
243:(
223:(
202:(
150:.
53::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
