Talk:Statutory interpretation

message: 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 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'. Joel a joseph (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to insert sub-categories in General Principles 

message: 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. Joel a joseph (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between interpretation and construction 

message: 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 "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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.4.11.65 (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2006.
: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? Lagringa 10:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: An explanation of why I reverted Trinity Church - the case was decided against the plain meaning of the statute because the straightforward reading would go against the fundamental value of allowing free religious exercise. --Libertylaw 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sorry for introducing an error! Wareh 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No worries. I actually think the Holy Trinity Church v. United States page is inaccurate, or at least misleading, but I don't have time to fix it during exams. --Libertylaw 12:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trinity Church

message: IANAL, but I recall from reading Stephen Breyer's book Active Liberty 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?  121a0012 21:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another one? 

message: Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant — Subsequent laws repeal those before enacted to the contrary. Shouldn't we have them all? Foofighter20x (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aren't there more than just what's listed? 

message: Ties in with the merge discussion above. Found another long lost article that should be included in this article. Foofighter20x (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Rule of Lenity redirects here.  It's not the same though, so I'm thinking about breaking it out unless there are objections.
Piratejosh85 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rule of Lenity

message: 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. Rbakels (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just the courts 

message: This article gives a heavily US-biased view on a topic of importance in all nations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.48.202 (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Perspective