Wildy Logo
(020) 7242 5778
enquiries@wildy.com

Book of the Month

Cover of Handbook of ICC Arbitration: Commentary, Precedents, Materials

Handbook of ICC Arbitration: Commentary, Precedents, Materials

Price: £225.00

Law Society's Conveyancing Handbook

Read more...


Welcome to Wildys

Watch


Wildy, Simmonds & Hill

New Edition
Small Claims Procedure in the County Court: A Practical Guide
Includes guide to Road Traffic Act Small Claims Protocol


The Complete List...


Offers for Newly Called Barristers & Students

Special Discounts for Newly Called & Students

Read More ...


Secondhand & Out of Print

Browse Secondhand Online

Read More...


This book is now Out of Print.
A new edition has been published, the details can be seen here:
A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law 2nd ed isbn 9780691174044

A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law


ISBN13: 9780691004006
ISBN: 0691004005
New Edition ISBN: 9780691174044
Published: June 2000
Publisher: Princeton University Press
Country of Publication: USA
Format: Paperback
Price: Out of print



In this essay, Judge Antonin Scalia argues that the common-law mindset, although appropriate in its place, is not suitable for statutory and constitutional interpretation. In exploring the neglected art of statutory interpretation, he urges judges to 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 lawyers meant, rather than by what the legislature actually promulgated. He argues that eschewing the judicial lawmaking that is the essence of common law, judges should interpret statutes and regulations by focusing on the text itself.

Scalia proposes that the notion of an ever-changing Constitution is abandoned and that attention is paid to the Constitution's original meaning. Although not subscribing to the ""strict constitutionalism"" 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.