Legislation and Regulation Midterm

Question 1

Textualism

Answer 1

Focuses on the text of the Act and seeks the ordinary, public meaning of the text in its statutory context; adopt narrow view of ambiguity

Question 2

Purposivism

Answer 2

Focuses on the reason the legislature enacted the act; broader view of ambiguity

Question 3

Intentionalism

Answer 3

Focuses on the enacting legislature’s intent on the specific issue; broader view of ambiguity

Question 4

Plain Meaning Canon

Answer 4

Directs judges to discern and apply the ordinary meanings of the word(s) at issue

Question 5

Smith v. United States

Answer 5

Established the plain meaning canon; gun case regarding if a gun is in “use” in a drug deal if being bartered; utilizes plain meaning of use, does not state “as a weapon” in statute

Question 6

Muscarello v. United States and Technical Meaning Canon

Answer 6

Case regarding whether a gun in a glovebox during a drug transaction amounted to “carrying”; Technical meaning is a caveat to plain meaning canon, context is key

Question 7

Moderate Textualist

Answer 7

Plain meaning, but if ambiguous or absurd, will consult other sources, including legislative history

Question 8

Strict (new) Textualist

Answer 8

Plain meaning, but even if ambiguous or absurd, will not examine certain extrinsic sources, such as legislative history (ex: Scalia)

Question 9

Ambiguity

Answer 9

When 1) words are capable of being understood by reasonable people in more than one way (broader definition of ambiguity); 2) two (or more) meanings are equally plausible (more narrow definition of ambiguity)

Question 10

Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine

Answer 10

If must choose between two or more plausible, ordinary meanings, the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine directs judges to choose the meaning that avoids invalidating a law for being unconstitutional

Question 11

Modern Constitutional Avoidance

Answer 11

Does not require for it first to be found that an interpretation violates the Constitution

Question 12

Classical Constitutional Avoidance

Answer 12

When a court finds an act unconstitutional, the court should adopt an alternative interpretation that is fair and reasonable to avoid having to declare the act unconstitutional

Question 13

Absurdity Doctrine

Answer 13

If plain meaning would lead to an absurd result, can look to extra-textual sources

Question 14

Solutions to Absurdity

Answer 14

If, after reviewing the extra-textual evidence for what the legislature intended, the court determines the absurd result WAS intended, then the plain meaning interpretation stands; If, after reviewing the extra-textual evidence for what the legislature intended, the court determines the absurd results WAS NOT intended, then the court has two options: 1) look to a different canon (policy based) 2) accept the absurdity as what congress intended

Question 15

United States v. Marshall

Answer 15

LSD “carrier” case; found ambiguity, majority asserted Constitutional Avoidance was an ambiguity solver; takeaway that if a case is found to be ambiguous, use CAD to resolve; dissent was textualist

Question 16

Rule of Lenity

Answer 16

Principle of interpretation that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner that is most favorable to the defendant (Yates v. United States, fish case)