Download Free A Commentary On The Interpretation Of Statutes Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online A Commentary On The Interpretation Of Statutes and write the review.

Statutory interpretation affects every area of law and is of growing scholarly interest given long-running debate about the coherence of statutory interpretation and the fact that the law of interpretation comprises 'frail guidelines'. This contributed work critically analyses the law in light of this debate. It examines areas where the law is coherent leading to confidence in the judiciary and the administration of the law. It also examines areas where the law is not coherent and is need of improvement.
Statutory interpretation has become the most commonly-required skill of the modern lawyer. A Dictionary of Statutory Interpretation provides a ready reference to the important terms and ideas that arise in connection with determining the meaning of legislation. Chapter 1 includes over 100 entries, including the following: ambiguity the absurdity canon linguistic and substantive canons legislative intent legislative purpose legislative history textualism Legal Realism Law and Economics Each entry includes a definition, an explanation of the relevance of the term and ideas for statutory interpretation, some history about its use, and a concise discussion of contemporary issues. The author expresses his point of view in the discussion of these issues - which is generally skeptical about textualism - but presents all sides of the debate. A "reference" section allows for further research on each subject. Chapter 2 includes over 35 famous quotations dealing with the interpretation of statutes, along with historical and critical commentary. The entries include Learned Hand, Holmes, Calabresi, Posner, Easterbrook, Pound, Blackstone, etc. The book will be useful for lawyers, judges, law professors, and law students who want an entry into the contemporary debate about how to interpret legislation, along with an insight into what is at stake in those debates. "...filled with usefully extended treatments of important and interesting legal terms." -- The Green Bag "This book will be a useful tool for readers or libraries needing a good single-volume guide to statutory interpretation. Summing up: Highly recommended." -- CHOICE "Librarians and researchers . . . should consider A Dictionary of Statutory Interpretation an essential reference work (for a very affordable price). . . . [It] will likely become a go-to resource when quick but in-depth analysis of a statutory interpretation question is sought." -- Legal Information Alert, (Volume 26, Issue #9), Alert Publications, Inc., Chicago, IL. www.alertpub.com
In an ideal world, the laws of Congress--known as federal statutes--would always be clearly worded and easily understood by the judges tasked with interpreting them. But many laws feature ambiguous or even contradictory wording. How, then, should judges divine their meaning? Should they stick only to the text? To what degree, if any, should they consult aids beyond the statutes themselves? Are the purposes of lawmakers in writing law relevant? Some judges, such as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, believe courts should look to the language of the statute and virtually nothing else. Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit respectfully disagrees. In Judging Statutes, Katzmann, who is a trained political scientist as well as a judge, argues that our constitutional system charges Congress with enacting laws; therefore, how Congress makes its purposes known through both the laws themselves and reliable accompanying materials should be respected. He looks at how the American government works, including how laws come to be and how various agencies construe legislation. He then explains the judicial process of interpreting and applying these laws through the demonstration of two interpretative approaches, purposivism (focusing on the purpose of a law) and textualism (focusing solely on the text of the written law). Katzmann draws from his experience to show how this process plays out in the real world, and concludes with some suggestions to promote understanding between the courts and Congress. When courts interpret the laws of Congress, they should be mindful of how Congress actually functions, how lawmakers signal the meaning of statutes, and what those legislators expect of courts construing their laws. The legislative record behind a law is in truth part of its foundation, and therefore merits consideration.
The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and plays a central role in both the peaceful settlement of international disputes and the development of international law. This comprehensive Commentary on the Statute of the International Court of Justice, now in its second edition, analyses in detail not only the Statute of the Court itself but also the related provisions of the United Nations Charter as well as the relevant provisions of the Court's Rules of Procedure. Five years after the first edition was published, the second edition of the Commentary embraces current events before the International Court of Justice as well as before other courts and tribunals relevant for the interpretation and application of its Statute. The Commentary provides a comprehensive overview and analysis of all legal questions and issues the Court has had to address in the past and will have to address in the future. It illuminates the central issues of procedure and substance that the Court and counsel appearing before it face in their day-to-day work. In addition to commentary covering all of the articles of the Statute of the ICJ, plus the relevant articles of the Charter of the United Nations, the book includes three scene-setting chapters: Historical Introduction, General Principles of Procedural Law, and Discontinuation and Withdrawal. The second edition of the Commentary adds two important and instructive chapters on Counter-Claims and Evidentiary Issues. The combination of expert editors and commentators, and their assessment of new developments in the important work of the ICJ, make this a landmark publication in the field of international law.
We are all familiar with the image of the immensely clever judge who discerns the best rule of common law for the case at hand. According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a judge like this can maneuver through earlier cases to achieve the desired aim—“distinguishing one prior case on his left, straight-arming another one on his right, high-stepping away from another precedent about to tackle him from the rear, until (bravo!) he reaches the goal—good law." But is this common-law mindset, which is appropriate in its place, suitable also in statutory and constitutional interpretation? In a witty and trenchant essay, Justice Scalia answers this question with a resounding negative. In exploring the neglected art of statutory interpretation, Scalia urges that judges resist the temptation to use legislative intention and legislative history. In his view, it is incompatible with democratic government to allow the meaning of a statute to be determined by what the judges think the lawgivers meant rather than by what the legislature actually promulgated. Eschewing the judicial lawmaking that is the essence of common law, judges should interpret statutes and regulations by focusing on the text itself. Scalia then extends this principle to constitutional law. He proposes that we abandon the notion of an everchanging Constitution and pay attention to the Constitution's original meaning. Although not subscribing to the “strict constructionism” that would prevent applying the Constitution to modern circumstances, Scalia emphatically rejects the idea that judges can properly “smuggle” in new rights or deny old rights by using the Due Process Clause, for instance. In fact, such judicial discretion might lead to the destruction of the Bill of Rights if a majority of the judges ever wished to reach that most undesirable of goals. This essay is followed by four commentaries by Professors Gordon Wood, Laurence Tribe, Mary Ann Glendon, and Ronald Dworkin, who engage Justice Scalia’s ideas about judicial interpretation from varying standpoints. In the spirit of debate, Justice Scalia responds to these critics. Featuring a new foreword that discusses Scalia’s impact, jurisprudence, and legacy, this witty and trenchant exchange illuminates the brilliance of one of the most influential legal minds of our time.