Why Do We Need Rules For The Interpretation of Statutes?

Words are an imperfect means of communication Words very often have more than one meaning i.e. they can be ambiguous A broad term may be used in a statute which can give rise to confusion and uncertainty There may be errors or omissions when the statute is drafted New developments in society can make the words used in a statute out of date and they may no longer cover the current situation

The interpretation/construction distinction is about certainty. Version 1: Interpretation takes place when the meaning of the constitution is clear (by any broadly accepted theory of constitutional interpretation). Construction takes place when the meaning of the constitution is contested. Version 2: Interpretation takes place when persons claim that they have discovered the objective right answer to what the constitution or a constitutional provision means, however difficult the investigation may have been. People construe the constitution when they admit that their answer is not objectively correct. Version 3: People who believe that right answers exist to hard constitutional questions (think Ronald Dworkin) engage in interpretation, even if they admit that cannot presently demonstrate to all rational minds that their present answers are correct. People who deny right answers exist to hard constitutional questions engage in construction. The interpretation/construction distinction is about meaning or methods. Version 4: Interpretation takes place when we look for the original meaning of the constitution. All other forms of constitutional analysis engage in construction Version 5: Originalists engage in interpretation, even when they focus on original intentions, expectations or methods. All other forms of constitutional analysis engage in construction. Version 6: Persons concerned with the linguistic meaning of the constitution engage in interpretation. Persons concerned with other kinds of meaning engage in construction. The interpretation/construction distinction is tied to institutions. Version 7: Courts as a matter of history have engaged in interpretation. Non-judicial officials as a matter of history have engaged in construction. Version 8: Courts may only interpret the constitution. Elected officials are free to construe the constitution.

Version 9: By definition, courts interpret and elected officials construe. The interpretation/construction distinction is about the difference between meaning and implementation Version 10: Interpretation takes place when we look for the meaning of the constitution. Construction takes place when we try to operationalize that meaning into principles of constitutional law. Most versions of the distinction combine different versions, so altogether about 50 practical versions of interpretation/construction probably exist. Rather confusing, given that the different versions of distinction are aimed at different problems. The best solution I can offer is that we might do better starting with the problems (what is the role of courts in a constitutional democracy; how should we read constitutional language, etc) than with first making the distinction between construction and interpretation and then determining what problems that distinction might solve.