Edit filter log

'{{globalize|date=October 2011}} {{Judicial interpretation}} '''Judicial interpretation''' is a theory or mode of thought that explains how the [[judiciary]] should interpret the [[law]], particularly [[constitution]]al documents and [[legislation]] (see [[statutory interpretation]]). An interpretation which results in or supports some form of law-making role for the judiciary in interpreting the law is sometimes pejoratively characterized as [[judicial activism]], the opposite of which is judicial lethargy, with [[judicial restraint]] somewhere in between. In the [[United States]], there are various methods of constitutional interpretation: * [[Textualism]] is when judges consult the actual language of the Constitution first, and perhaps last, according to government scholar John E. Finn, who added that the method has an "obvious appeal" for its simplicity but can be hampered when the language of the Constitution itself is ambiguous.<ref name=tws3R18fs>{{cite news |author= John E. Finn |title= Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights |work= The Teaching Company |quote= Part I: Lecture 4: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation (see pages 52, 53, 54 in the guidebook) |year= 2006 |accessdate= 2013-01-20 }}</ref>vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv * [[Strict constructionism]] is when a judge interprets the text only as it is spoken; once a clear meaning has been established, there is no need for further analysis, and judges should avoid drawing inferences from previous statutes or the constitution and instead focus on exactly what was written.<ref>[http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/APGOV_Judiciary.htm The Judiciary: The Power of the Federal Judiciary], The Social Studies Help Center</ref> For example, Justice [[Hugo Black]] argued that the First Amendment's wording in reference to certain civil rights that ''Congress shall make no law'' should mean exactly that: ''no'' law, ''no'' exceptions, end of story, according to Black. * ''Founders' Intent'' is when judges try to gauge the intentions of the authors of the Constitution. Problems can arise when judges try to determine which particular Founders or Framers to consult, as well as try to determine what they meant based on often sparse and incomplete documentation.<ref name=tws3R18fs/> * [[Originalism]] is when judges try to apply the "original" meanings of various constitutional provisions.<ref name=tws3R18fs/> * ''Balancing'' happens when judges weigh one set of interests or rights against an opposing set, typically used to make rulings in [[First Amendment to the Constitution|First Amendment]] cases. This approach was criticized by Supreme Court justice [[Felix Frankfurter]] who argued that the Constitution gives no guidance about how to weigh or measure divergent interests.<ref name=tws3R18fs/> * [[Prudentialism]] discourages judges from setting broad rules for possible future cases, and advises courts to play a limited role.<ref name=tws3R18fs/> * Doctrinalism considers how various parts of the Constitution have been "shaped by the Court's own jurisprudence", according to Finn.<ref name=tws3R18fs/> * ''Precedent'' is when judges decide a case by looking to the decision of a previous and similar case according to [[stare decisis]], and finds a rule or principle in the earlier case to guide the current case.<ref name=tws3R18fs/> * [[Structuralism]] is a method judges use by finding the meaning of a particular constitutional principle only by "reading it against the larger constitutional document or context," according to Finn.<ref name=tws3R18fs/> * Functionalism.{{citation needed|date=January 2013}} ==See also== * [[Jurisprudence]] * [[Constitutionalism]] * [[Constitutional economics]] * [[Legal interpretation in South Africa]] * [[Rule according to higher law]] * [[Judicial activism]] * [[Separation of powers]] * [[Statutory interpretation]] ==References== {{reflist}} ==External links== *{{Wikiquote-inline|judicial interpretation}} {{jurisprudence}} [[Category:Interpretation (philosophy)]] [[Category:Legal reasoning]] [[Category:Judiciaries|*]] [[bg:Тълкуване на правото]] [[cs:Výklad (právo)]] [[de:Auslegung (Recht)]] [[lt:Teisės aiškinimas]] [[ja:法解釈]] [[pl:Wykładnia prawa]] [[ru:Толкование права]] [[sk:Výklad]] [[zh:司法解釋]]'