Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial interpretation is the way in which the judiciary construes the law, particularly constitutional documents, legislation and frequently used vocabulary.This is an important issue in some common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Canada, because the supreme courts of those nations can overturn laws made by their legislatures via a process called judicial review.
Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the ...
The need for a comprehensive guide to the interpretation of the Constitution was apparent to Congress from early in the 20th century. In 1911, the Senate Manual contained the United States Constitution and Amendments with citations to decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning constitutional law. [4]
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.
The current focus, he said, should be on ethics reform. Justices, particularly Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have been scrutinized heavily with accusations of ethics violations and political bias.
Political question – the issues raised in the suit are unreviewable because the Constitution relegates it to another branch of government. [12] The Supreme Court prohibits itself from issuing advisory opinions where there is no actual case or controversy before them.(See Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911)). [14]
The concept of rational basis review can be traced to an influential 1893 article, "The Origin and Scope of American Constitutional Law", by Harvard law professor James Bradley Thayer. Thayer argued that statutes should be invalidated only if their unconstitutionality is "so clear that it is not open to rational question". [12]
Clear statement rules are commonly applied in areas implicating the structural constitution, such as federalism, sovereign immunity, nondelegation, preemption, or federal spending with strings attached. This is especially true when there is a strong interest against implicit abridgment of traditional understandings.