Problems?
Problems? How does the statute define a
parent in Sec. 2611? May the DOL promulgate a regulation that conflicts with the Act?
The first purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the legislature.
Is it the courts' job to determine precisely
what Congress intended or should courts apply statutes according to the plain meaning of the words enacted Congress?
Should courts consult the purposes of the
The first purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the legislature.
Should courts pay attention to what
legislators said during discussion of the bill before it is enacted? Sponsors? Committees which report on a bill? Use of legislative history? Should courts use specialized rules of thumb, 'canons of construction' to aid in interpretation? ex. PMR
decision as the majority? How did the majority arrive at its conclusion?
What process did it follow?
What common law did it follow?
result? What is the purpose of the statute? What effect does subsequent legislation have?
thing. c.after the fact statements by legislators about intent are generally unreliable and should be ignored.
determine what the legislative body would do in a particular situation... it is finding specific intent in a specific situation. Purposivism -- similar to intentionalism, but jurists using it look for the more general purpose of a legislative action and seek to apply it to a specific situation. What inspired the legislation. Textualism -- the language is the key. Rarely do the jurists who adhere to this approach look beyond the text and textual devices (canons) which aid in interpretation.
7 -- States."
The legislative process is cumbersome and rarely does it move quickly. Why might this be a deliberate choice of the Framers?
Committee Consideration
Floor Debate and Amendment Reconciliation Presentment Consideration of Vetoes
Blackstones Commentaries
p.29 Rules 1-5. Know what they are. You will
Blackstone describe?
Riggs v. Palmer
Holding
Rationale Read: It is a familiar canon of construction p.32 How did the court use Blackstone? P.32 What maxim of Common Law did the majority cite? P. 33 Rule of law resulting? Dissent -- What position did the dissent take? Read aloud p. 34 beginning with (3d line) I should not hesitate
determine what the legislative body would do in a particular situation... it is finding specific intent in a specific situation. Purposivism -- similar to intentionalism, but jurists using it look for the more general purpose of a legislative action and seek to apply it to a specific situation. What inspired the legislation. Textualism -- the language is the key. Rarely do the jurists who adhere to this approach look beyond the text and textual devices (canons) which aid in interpretation.
any way assist or encouragealiens into the United States under contract to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States What are the stated exceptions? Is a pastor excluded?
American Trucking
S.Ct. 1940
What does this case add to the idea of purposivism? P.44 Read aloud indented paragraph
What factors did the majority consider ? What arguments did the hospital make? How did the Court respond?
U.S. v. Kirby
Supreme Court 1868
Who was Farris?
Contrary to widely and deeply held societal values. The absurdity doctrine fits comfortably with which school of thought about statutory interpretation? How does the other major school view the doctrine?
Analysis
Conclusion
SCRIVENERS ERROR
What is scriveners error?
U.S. v Locke
(SCT 1985)
Facts What happened and what facts suggest a mistake
Congressional Response
Which is easier to correct:
reading of a statute, or Legislative action to add / broaden a narrow interpretation? Does Locke provide a good candidate for such correction? Retroactivity?
doctrine?
Nix v. Hedden
S.Ct. 1893
Facts
Moskal v. U.S.
S.Ct. 1990
Dissent Scalia, OConnor, Kennedy What was their basic disagreement with Marshall and the majority? Frankfurter: If a word is obviously transplanted from another source, whether common law or legislation, it brings its soil with it. Is this a case of ordinary v. technical meaning? Who is the audience of the statute? What difference
Smith v. U.S.
S.Ct. 1993
The majority used the whole act rule. What is it and how
Both the majority and the dissent use dictionaries. What is the principal limitation of their use?
sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance What does the plain language suggest?
Report? What did the Court note about the statements of one legislator?
Why did the Court give greater weight to Senator
Bayhs comments?
What did the House Amendment provide? What happened to the House Amendment in
Conference Committee?
What did the majority conclude?
Blanchard v Bergeron
S.Ct. 1989 (p.163)
Holding
What did the Court hold? What was the majoritys reasoning?
How did it use legislative history?
What did the Court say about Johnson and
Legislative History
Committee Reports in the hierarchy
Legislative History
Statements of individual legislators
particularly bills sponsors Floor statements: a general acquiescence in the doctrine that debates in congress are not appropriate sources of information from which to discover the meaning of the language of a statute passed by that body. Why? P.156
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Controversial
of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself Aldridge v Williams (S.Ct. 1845). 1860-1940 sporadic use. 1940 American Trucking (S.Ct. 1940). 1980s Scalia & Easterbrook (v. Posner)
Legislative History
After the fact floor statements.
How do we know that a floor statement
was not actually spoken on the floor but inserted later? I ask permission for my remarks to be revised and extended for the record. What does this mean?
Legislative History
Statements made during hearings
what about statements made during
hearings that did not make it into the final committee report? Hearing transcripts? What did Professor Reed Dickerson say about committee testimony? P.158
Legislative History
Sponsors statements
Why are they reliable and given special weight?
questions.
Legislative History
The New Synthesis where are we today in the use of
legislative history compared to 1980? Who on the Supreme Court is largely responsible for this change? What justice refuses to join an opinion which relies on legislative history? Who else?
history should be used only when the legislative text is somehow ambiguous, another question is raised:
What is ambiguity?