CANONS OF INTERPRETATION 1. Purposivism (Argument) - Acknowledges that there is more going on to a statute than just the text. The Court asks what the legislature would want to occur in the case before the court. If it is clear how Congress wanted a particular case resolved, then the Court should honor that intent. If it is unclear, the Court looks to the broader purpose of the statute. If the language of the statute conflicts with the broader purpose, then the Court ignores the test. 2. Intentionalism (Bargain) - Relies on the legislative history of the statute and what the legislators intended when they signed it into law. If legislative history is lacking, judges either move to purposivism or textualism. 3. Textualism - Relies solely on the text of the statute and nothing more, despite consequences. Rationale is that courts should enforce the law as written because Congress can redraft the law to remedy any contrary interpretation. Rests on the idea that there is no singular legislative intent and, even if there were, it is not law.