What is the opposite of the legal concept called ‘textualism’? A textualist considers that the meaning of the document is fixed at that point, unless it is amended or altered later A textualist normally considers a document as a whole, not an individual word or clause except in the context of the rest of the document Textualism is a formalist theory It is sometimes known as original meaning theory
Textualism and originalism - Law Stack Exchange In the context of interpreting the U S Constitution, what is the distinction between textualism and originalism? Are the two approaches applied much outside of the U S in other contexts?
Strict construction vs. plain meaning vs. textualism vs . . . Here are some general explanations of the different terms Strict Construction Plain Meaning Textualism The law means exactly what it says and nothing more There is no wiggle room for interpreting it to mean things that it doesn't explicitly say Loose Construction When interpreting a law take into consideration what it seems the law is trying to accomplish which can be more than what the
constitutional law - Why does the ninth amendment carry so much less . . . And why do dissents of textualist rulings not seem to cite the ninth amendment when arguing against it if it is such a fundamental idea? It seems to me more like the ninth amendment just gets almost completely eschewed in constitutional law, rather than acting as a guiding principle
How can Trump legally serve a third term? - Law Stack Exchange I read on Donald Trump assures that he is quot;not joking quot; about the possibility of running for a third term (title Google Translated from French) that Trump is considering serving a third te
Are judges obliged to obey precedent? - Law Stack Exchange Later on, a case that's essentially exactly the same comes before judge Ted the textualist One of the lawyers in the case argues to Ted that clear precedent has been set by Fern's ruling Is Ted obliged to honor Fern's precedent, or can he say "I don't agree with Fern's interpretation" and rule with respect to his own interpretation of L?
do Judges have the power to interpret a law contrary to the drafters . . . There are also non-textualist "progressive" trends that seek justice according to some social principle, rather than the text of the law or the definitive intent of the original legislators, which may address the situation that you have in mind
US states and legal tender (money) - Law Stack Exchange That seems like a good idea to me but I do not think it is the law Judges may primarily look at the text of the law and not the intended purpose legislative history which may be hard to ascertain and contradictory For a textualist, congressional intent is almost irrelevant