Download Free Treatise On The Rules Which Govern The Interpretation And Construction Of Statutory And Constitutional Law Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Treatise On The Rules Which Govern The Interpretation And Construction Of Statutory And Constitutional Law and write the review.

Reprint of the original, first published in 1874.
Reprint of the original, first published in 1857. The publishing house Anatiposi publishes historical books as reprints. Due to their age, these books may have missing pages or inferior quality. Our aim is to preserve these books and make them available to the public so that they do not get lost.
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1874 edition. Excerpt: ...that where an instrument contains a clause or provision in contravention of a statute, it renders the whole instrument invalid. I may here remark that the rule is in its nature arbitrary, and calculated to work injustice, and that it appears to be subject to exceptions. So, where there are different and independent covenants in the same instrument, part may be good and part bad. So, a personal covenant to pay a rent charge may be good, and the security of the rent charge on the living may be bad.f Cumulative Remedies and Penalties.--Where a precise remedy for the violation of a right is provided by statute, it often becomes a matter of interest to know whether the statutory remedy is the only one that can be had, or whether it is to be regarded as merely cumulative, the party aggrieved having also a right to resort to his redress for the injury sustained, at common law, or independently of the statute.(a) In regard to Wetherell v. Jones, 3 Barn. & Ad. 221. Mouys v. Leake, 8 T. R. 411; Kerrison t Mohney v. Cook, 26 Penn. 842. v. Cole, 8 East, 234; Dwarris, p. 638. See Ante, p. 73. Chitty on Contracts, p. 536. (a) When Statutory liemedies Exclusive.--For cases holding such remedies exclusive, see Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch. 398 (taxes); Victory v. Fitzpatrick, 8 Ind. 281 (Eminent domain); McCormack v. Terre Haute, &c. R. R. 9 Ind. 283 (Eminent domain). A statute prescribing a method of investigating elections takes away the common-law remedy in cases covered by it., Commonwealth v. Garrigues, 28 Penn. St. 9. When a pecuniary obligation is created by statute, and a remedy is given by this we have already noticed the rule that where a statute does not vest a right in a person, but only prohibits the doing of some act under a penalty, in such a...
Considered a legal classic. At one point, this text was considered a guide for American judges, & lawyers found it to be extremely useful in arguments. Pound referred to this title as one of the titles of the nineteenth century that went far to shape the 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.
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
"The United States Code is the official codification of the general and permanent laws of the United States of America. The Code was first published in 1926, and a new edition of the code has been published every six years since 1934. The 2012 edition of the Code incorporates laws enacted through the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, the last of which was signed by the President on January 15, 2013. It does not include laws of the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, enacted between January 2, 2013, the date it convened, and January 15, 2013. By statutory authority this edition may be cited "U.S.C. 2012 ed." As adopted in 1926, the Code established prima facie the general and permanent laws of the United States. The underlying statutes reprinted in the Code remained in effect and controlled over the Code in case of any discrepancy. In 1947, Congress began enacting individual titles of the Code into positive law. When a title is enacted into positive law, the underlying statutes are repealed and the title then becomes legal evidence of the law. Currently, 26 of the 51 titles in the Code have been so enacted. These are identified in the table of titles near the beginning of each volume. The Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives continues to prepare legislation pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 285b to enact the remainder of the Code, on a title-by-title basis, into positive law. The 2012 edition of the Code was prepared and published under the supervision of Ralph V. Seep, Law Revision Counsel. Grateful acknowledgment is made of the contributions by all who helped in this work, particularly the staffs of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel and the Government Printing Office"--Preface.