Should the interpretation of law be

Raz b claims that the primary objects of interpretation are the decisions of legal authorities. Lord Bishop of Oxford: Semantic originalism[ edit ] Semantic-originalism is Ronald Dworkin 's term for the theory that the original meaning of many statutes implies that those statutes prohibit certain acts widely considered not to be prohibited by the statutes at the time of their passages.

As one author stated, "If the constitution can mean anything, then the constitution is reduced to meaninglessness. Framework Originalism, or Living Originalism, is a blend of primarily two constitutional interpretive methods: Times may change but human nature stays the same.

If judges are sometimes to deviate from what would otherwise be, according to law, the morally best outcome to a case before them on grounds of coherence, then, Raz contends, we are in need of a convincing positive argument why this should be so.

While everyone agrees that broad constitutional principles should control, if the question is whether abortion is a fundamental right, why should past centuries-old intentions be controlling?

Court of Appeals of Maryland: The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated.

The modern common law perception that courts actually make law is very different. This being so, for Dworkin, the object of legal interpretation appears to be broader than that adopted by Raz. The context, both legal and factual, may impart to the power that obligatoriness. Contracts must be explicit, clear, and concise as to ensure all interested parties' rights and requests are reflected accurately.

For instance, the provisions that regulate the contract of the sale of goods may be ordered to be pertinently applied to the contract of the exchange of goods. Raz a also champions local over global coherence in adjudication, and his argument mentioned in the previous section concerning the limitations on the reforming role of courts, and the way in which this sometimes militates in favour of coherence playing a role in judicial decision making, is intended to support local coherence only.

This process is achieved, primarily, through building political institutions, passing legislation, and creating precedents both judicial and non-judicial. Usually, that is easy to discern and simple to apply. More specifically, they will look for people who agree with them as to what those evolving standards have evolved to; who agree with them as to what the constitution ought to be.

We may state, as an example of this rule, an engagement which I make with you to abandon my share in a succession for a certain sum.

Statutory interpretation

It is extensive whenever the reason of the law has a more enlarged sense than its terms, and it is consequently applied to a case which had not been explained. Raz a also characterises coherence in law in terms of unity of principle.A law which is not too vague, and may not be struck down, may be "ruled upon" by one of our Circuit Courts (of Appeals), thus setting a regional jurisdictional precedent (or the Supreme Court, as it pertains to the nation, or state's interpretation of laws which must be implemented).

I believe that the interpretation of law should be in the middle of strict and loose. If the interpretation of law is loose, then people will just go around it and find their way out.


If it’s strict, then there would be no way out of it and maybe have bigger un-needed consequences. The rule of a special norm (lex specialis) is a general principle of law. Interpretation should be based on the priority of the application of special rules over general rules.

We are talking about the priority of the application, not a general priority or a higher legal force which would allow a. JERUSALEM – The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S.

Basic rules of interpretation

president and those around him, according to President Obama’s newly. This article deals with the Interpretation of the words “may” and “shall” in Indian Law and what they really mean. Since these words are not technical terms as far as Law is concerned, reliance is placed upon various Case Law, which helps us understand how to interpret these terms.

So, for example, is coherence the sole desideratum which should guide judges in interpreting the law, or is it merely one feature of a successful such interpretation, and, moreover, is it a necessary feature, or one which, although desirable, may be overridden by competing values which judges should also try to realise in interpreting the law?

Should the interpretation of law be
Rated 5/5 based on 45 review