Legislative intent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In law, the legislative intent of the legislature in enacting legislation may sometimes be considered by the judiciary when interpreting the law (see judicial interpretation). The judiciary may attempt to assess legislative intent where legislation is ambiguous, or does not appear to directly or adequately address a particular issue. When a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts have said, repeatedly, that the inquiry into legislative intent ends at that point. It is only when a statute could be interpreted in more than one fashion that legislative intent must be inferred from sources other than the actual text of the statute.
In law, the legislative intent of the legislature in enacting legislation may sometimes be considered by the judiciary when interpreting the law (see judicial interpretation). The judiciary may attempt to assess legislative intent where legislation is ambiguous, or does not appear to directly or adequately address a particular issue.
When a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts have said, repeatedly, that the inquiry into legislative intent ends at that point. It is only when a statute could be interpreted in more than one fashion that legislative intent must be inferred from sources other than the actual text of the statute.
German jurisprudence seems to allow a comparable approach.
By the same token, a signing statement might also be considered a legitimate attempt to resolve an ambiguity.
The problem, of course, comes when these instruments are abused (as when unambiguous provisions are voided by a signing statement) or used beyond their appropriate scope (i.e. the Franks exchange would seem to be a very tenuous basis on which to establish legislative intent). The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
Legislative languages seem to have evolved intentionally more obscure, so that full understanding (even reading through) would be beyond capabilities of legislators. A very convenient way to pass or interpret laws "as needed".
Legislative language is by nature obscure because it is both old and has evolved a highly complex structure - the purpose being to minimize ambiguity.
I suspect that laws that at first glance seem readily comprehensible are those most subject to sweeping and arbitrary interpretation: "simple" terms like "antisocial behavior" can be (and was, under National Socialism) stretched to cover almost anything.
So I'll take the law framed in obscure language to one couched in accessible terms any day. The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
A particular phenomenon is absurd length of some law acts, up to over thousand pages. You heard of the Patriot Act, numerous pork-barrel projects and "hidden" details in US lawmaking. Can we compare obscurity and length of laws in various countries, or of different times?
As a concrete example, ponder by what intentions The Second Ammendment is formulated like this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What is "Militia", why it is stressed first? How a right can be "well regulated"? Is "necessary to the security" a declaration or a condition?
'A well regulated Militia' meant (then) the temporary deputizing of citizens to train and fight to defend the state/territory - under military command and under military rules.
The right to keep and bear arms was to fulfill that duty of serving in the militia, not for any other reason - according to the amendment as it was understood at the time it was written.
Sentence construction changes. Vocabulary changes. ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
Later in the 19th century, a 'posse' of deputized sheriffs would be formed under the same principles - they brought their own horses too.
The military draft is a form of deputizing, except you are not allowed to bring anything of your own ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
horses with bears arms would be very scary though Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
Does this apply to the phrase "any other financial instrument" as used in the TARP bill? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
"Instrument" solves the problem of using the word "Asset" since the same instrument looks like an "Asset" or a "Liability" depending on which side of the transaction you sit.
Generality removes ambiguity. It also gives greater discretion. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
