Constitutional avoidance - Revision history

Aschlafly at 14:09, June 4, 2017

2017-06-04T14:09:47Z

Aschlafly: formatting

2017-06-04T14:06:50Z

formatting

DavidB4-bot: /* top */clean up

2016-06-23T20:32:58Z

top: clean up

Tash at 01:48, September 18, 2007

2007-09-18T01:48:04Z

Aschlafly: improved

2007-06-28T02:53:30Z

improved

Aschlafly: New page: Constitutional avoidance is a canon or principle of statutory interpretation that requires construing a statute in order to avoid any potential conflicts with the U.S. Constitution...

2007-06-28T02:34:59Z

New page: Constitutional avoidance is a canon or principle of statutory interpretation that requires construing a statute in order to avoid any potential conflicts with the U.S. Constitution...

New page

Constitutional avoidance is a canon or principle of [[statutory interpretation]] that requires construing a statute in order to avoid any potential conflicts with the [[U.S. Constitution]] or applicable state constitution.
[[category:law]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''Constitutional avoidance''' is a canon or principle of [[statutory interpretation]] that requires construing a statute in order to avoid any potential conflicts with the [[U.S. Constitution]] or applicable state constitution.
-“It has long been an axiom of statutory interpretation that ‘where an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such con-struction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.”  ''Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice'', 491 U.S. 440, 466 (1989) (citing ''Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council'', 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988)).
+“It has long been an axiom of statutory interpretation that ‘where an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.”  ''Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice'', 491 U.S. 440, 466 (1989) (citing ''Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council'', 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988)).
 Sutherland's Statutes and Statutory Construction recites that a “court should construe legislative enactments to avoid constitutional difficulties if possible” and that “when possible, statutory provisions should be construed in such a way as to avoid unconstitutionality rather than simply void them on the basis of an interpretation which renders them constitutionally infirm.”  Norman Singer, ''Sutherland’s Statutes and Statutory Construction'' 45.11, 48-49 n.4 & n.7 (5th ed. 1992).
 [[Category:Law]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 “It has long been an axiom of statutory interpretation that ‘where an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such con-struction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.”  ''Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice'', 491 U.S. 440, 466 (1989) (citing ''Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council'', 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988)).
-Sutherland's Statutes and Statutory Con-struction recites that a “court should construe legislative enactments to avoid constitutional difficulties if possible” and that “when possible, statutory provisions should be construed in such a way as to avoid unconstitutionality rather than simply void them on the basis of an interpretation which renders them constitutionally infirm.”  Norman Singer, Sutherland’s Statutes and Statutory Construction 45.11, 48-49 n.4 & n.7 (5th ed. 1992).
+Sutherland's Statutes and Statutory Construction recites that a “court should construe legislative enactments to avoid constitutional difficulties if possible” and that “when possible, statutory provisions should be construed in such a way as to avoid unconstitutionality rather than simply void them on the basis of an interpretation which renders them constitutionally infirm.”  Norman Singer, ''Sutherland’s Statutes and Statutory Construction'' 45.11, 48-49 n.4 & n.7 (5th ed. 1992).
 [[Category:Law]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:32, June 23, 2016
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Sutherland's Statutes and Statutory Con-struction recites that a “court should construe legislative enactments to avoid constitutional difficulties if possible” and that “when possible, statutory provisions should be construed in such a way as to avoid unconstitutionality rather than simply void them on the basis of an interpretation which renders them constitutionally infirm.” Norman Singer, Sutherland’s Statutes and Statutory Construction 45.11, 48-49 n.4 & n.7 (5th ed. 1992).		Sutherland's Statutes and Statutory Con-struction recites that a “court should construe legislative enactments to avoid constitutional difficulties if possible” and that “when possible, statutory provisions should be construed in such a way as to avoid unconstitutionality rather than simply void them on the basis of an interpretation which renders them constitutionally infirm.” Norman Singer, Sutherland’s Statutes and Statutory Construction 45.11, 48-49 n.4 & n.7 (5th ed. 1992).

−	[[~~category~~:~~law~~]]	+	[[Category:Law]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Constitutional avoidance is a canon or principle of [[statutory interpretation]] that requires construing a statute in order to avoid any potential conflicts with the [[U.S. Constitution]] or applicable state constitution.
+'''Constitutional avoidance''' is a canon or principle of [[statutory interpretation]] that requires construing a statute in order to avoid any potential conflicts with the [[U.S. Constitution]] or applicable state constitution.
-“It has long been an axiom of statutory interpretation that ‘where an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such con-struction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.”  ''Public Citizen v. United States Dep’t of Justice'', 491 U.S. 440, 466 (1989) (citing ''Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council'', 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988)).
+“It has long been an axiom of statutory interpretation that ‘where an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such con-struction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.”  ''Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice'', 491 U.S. 440, 466 (1989) (citing ''Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council'', 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988)).
 Sutherland's Statutes and Statutory Con-struction recites that a “court should construe legislative enactments to avoid constitutional difficulties if possible” and that “when possible, statutory provisions should be construed in such a way as to avoid unconstitutionality rather than simply void them on the basis of an interpretation which renders them constitutionally infirm.”  Norman Singer, Sutherland’s Statutes and Statutory Construction 45.11, 48-49 n.4 & n.7 (5th ed. 1992).
 [[category:law]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:53, June 28, 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Constitutional avoidance is a canon or principle of [[statutory interpretation]] that requires construing a statute in order to avoid any potential conflicts with the [[U.S. Constitution]] or applicable state constitution.		Constitutional avoidance is a canon or principle of [[statutory interpretation]] that requires construing a statute in order to avoid any potential conflicts with the [[U.S. Constitution]] or applicable state constitution.
		+
		+	“It has long been an axiom of statutory interpretation that ‘where an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such con-struction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.” ''Public Citizen v. United States Dep’t of Justice'', 491 U.S. 440, 466 (1989) (citing ''Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council'', 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988)).
		+
		+	Sutherland's Statutes and Statutory Con-struction recites that a “court should construe legislative enactments to avoid constitutional difficulties if possible” and that “when possible, statutory provisions should be construed in such a way as to avoid unconstitutionality rather than simply void them on the basis of an interpretation which renders them constitutionally infirm.” Norman Singer, Sutherland’s Statutes and Statutory Construction 45.11, 48-49 n.4 & n.7 (5th ed. 1992).
		+
	[[category:law]]		[[category:law]]