digplanet beta 1: Athena
Share digplanet:

Agriculture

Applied sciences

Arts

Belief

Business

Chronology

Culture

Education

Environment

Geography

Health

History

Humanities

Language

Law

Life

Mathematics

Nature

People

Politics

Science

Society

Technology

Judicial interpretation is a theory or mode of thought that explains how the judiciary should interpret the law, particularly constitutional documents and legislation (see statutory interpretation). An interpretation which results in or supports some form of law-making role for the judiciary in interpreting the law is sometimes pejoratively characterized as judicial activism, the opposite of which is judicial lethargy, with judicial restraint somewhere in between.

In the United States, there are various methods of constitutional interpretation:

  • Textualism is when judges consult the actual language of the Constitution first, and perhaps last, according to government scholar John E. Finn, who added that the method has an "obvious appeal" for its simplicity but can be hampered when the language of the Constitution itself is ambiguous.[1]
  • Strict constructionism is when a judge interprets the text only as it is spoken; once a clear meaning has been established, there is no need for further analysis, and judges should avoid drawing inferences from previous statutes or the constitution and instead focus on exactly what was written.[2] For example, Justice Hugo Black argued that the First Amendment's wording in reference to certain civil rights that Congress shall make no law should mean exactly that: no law, no exceptions, end of story, according to Black.
  • Founders' Intent is when judges try to gauge the intentions of the authors of the Constitution. Problems can arise when judges try to determine which particular Founders or Framers to consult, as well as try to determine what they meant based on often sparse and incomplete documentation.[1]
  • Originalism is when judges try to apply the "original" meanings of various constitutional provisions.[1]
  • Balancing happens when judges weigh one set of interests or rights against an opposing set, typically used to make rulings in First Amendment cases. This approach was criticized by Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter who argued that the Constitution gives no guidance about how to weigh or measure divergent interests.[1]
  • Prudentialism discourages judges from setting broad rules for possible future cases, and advises courts to play a limited role.[1]
  • Doctrinalism considers how various parts of the Constitution have been "shaped by the Court's own jurisprudence", according to Finn.[1]
  • Precedent is when judges decide a case by looking to the decision of a previous and similar case according to stare decisis, and finds a rule or principle in the earlier case to guide the current case.[1]
  • Structuralism is a method judges use by finding the meaning of a particular constitutional principle only by "reading it against the larger constitutional document or context," according to Finn.[1]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h John E. Finn (2006). "Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights". The Teaching Company. "Part I: Lecture 4: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation (see pages 52, 53, 54 in the guidebook)" 
  2. ^ The Judiciary: The Power of the Federal Judiciary, The Social Studies Help Center

External links[edit]


Original courtesy of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation — Please support Wikipedia.
This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia. A portion of the proceeds from advertising on Digplanet goes to supporting Wikipedia.

79 news items

 
Lexology (registration)
Tue, 26 Aug 2014 06:52:30 -0700

Earlier this year, the Sunday Mirror published an article which claimed that disreputable landlords were making money from tenants on social security benefits. Midland Heart Housing Association and its CEO were cited in the article where it was said ...
 
Lexology (registration)
Thu, 28 Aug 2014 23:22:30 -0700

On 14 April 2014, Zhejiang High People's Court and Zhejiang Labour Dispute Committee jointly released the Reply II on Several Issues Concerning Labour Disputes (“Reply”). This Reply mainly enhances requirements under the existing regulations and also ...
 
Huroncountypress
Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:11:15 -0700

This EPA overreach, not justified by the law or any judicial interpretation of it, needs to be stopped in its tracks. I've tried to do my part, calling on the director of the EPA (along with 90 of my U.S. House colleagues in both political parties) to ...
 
PolitiFact
Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:37:30 -0700

This means that judicial interpretation will play a big role in how any such law is implemented. But because no state has passed a personhood bill, courts have not established a track record about how they would interpret such a measure and how the ...

New York Times

New York Times
Mon, 18 Aug 2014 09:32:28 -0700

But it went on to point out that “it is for Congress to limit its delegation of authority to the S.E.C.” by passing a statute to limit the insider trading prohibition, not judicial interpretation. Armed with the appeals court's decision, the S.E.C ...
 
Law360 (subscription)
Tue, 26 Aug 2014 06:59:30 -0700

Over the years, the scope of prohibited conduct covered by the AKS has expanded — through legislation and judicial interpretation — giving the federal government extraordinary power to investigate and prosecute those suspected of putting their own ...
 
The Epoch Times
Thu, 28 Aug 2014 02:45:00 -0700

When a homeowner challenges a violation in court, judicial interpretation can favor the inspector. The city argues that weeds are a health and safety hazard. According to the Chicago Streets and Sanitation Department website, tall weeds can “harbor ...
 
Washington Post (blog)
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 12:41:15 -0700

And reports from Ferguson suggest that some local authorities might be falling short of their obligations to respect the rights of citizens and to comply with judicial interpretation of the First and Fourth Amendments. Below are a few areas in which ...
Loading

Oops, we seem to be having trouble contacting Twitter

Talk About Judicial interpretation

You can talk about Judicial interpretation with people all over the world in our discussions.

Support Wikipedia

A portion of the proceeds from advertising on Digplanet goes to supporting Wikipedia. Please add your support for Wikipedia!