Textual - Revision history

DavidB4-bot: /* top */clean up & uniformity

2016-07-13T20:15:58Z

top: clean up & uniformity

AmesG at 19:04, April 26, 2007

2007-04-26T19:04:35Z

RSchlafly: add ref

2007-04-26T18:55:56Z

add ref

JeffersonDarcy: Words don't fly

2007-04-26T18:54:58Z

Words don't fly

RSchlafly: use actual example for Scalia's view

2007-04-26T18:54:15Z

use actual example for Scalia's view

AmesG at 16:05, April 26, 2007

2007-04-26T16:05:34Z

JeffersonDarcy at 16:00, April 26, 2007

2007-04-26T16:00:32Z

AmesG: New page: {{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is the idea that the meaning of the Constitution can be inferred from the plain meaning of the words themselves. Where the words are lacking to support a co...

2007-04-26T15:52:47Z

New page: {{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is the idea that the meaning of the Constitution can be inferred from the plain meaning of the words themselves. Where the words are lacking to support a co...

New page

{{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is the idea that the meaning of the Constitution can be inferred from the plain meaning of the words themselves. Where the words are lacking to support a constitutional argument, so is the constitutional basis. [[Antonin Scalia]] is a prominent textualist.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:15, July 13, 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	{{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is a legal theory that courts should rely on the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution and in other laws. Where the text does not support the interpretation, the interpretation necessarily fails. Supreme Court justice [[Antonin Scalia]] is a prominent textualist. For a recent example of his view, see Zuni v Dept. of Education<ref>http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-1508.html</ref>, where there appeared to be a difference between the intent of a statute and its plain meaning.	+	{{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is a legal theory that courts should rely on the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution and in other laws. Where the text does not support the interpretation, the interpretation necessarily fails. Supreme Court justice [[Antonin Scalia]] is a prominent textualist. For a recent example of his view, see Zuni v Dept. of Education,<ref>http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-1508.html</ref> where there appeared to be a difference between the intent of a statute and its plain meaning.

	A type of "textualism" is "meta-textualism." This method of interpretation suggests that all phrases in the Constitution are related, and should be interpreted as such. An example of a meta-textual interpretation would hold it erroneous that while the enforcement clause of the Thirteenth Amendment is read broadly, the enforcement clause of the Fourteenth is read narrowly, despite their grammatical similarities. Meta-textualism would read the two as necessarily equivalent.		A type of "textualism" is "meta-textualism." This method of interpretation suggests that all phrases in the Constitution are related, and should be interpreted as such. An example of a meta-textual interpretation would hold it erroneous that while the enforcement clause of the Thirteenth Amendment is read broadly, the enforcement clause of the Fourteenth is read narrowly, despite their grammatical similarities. Meta-textualism would read the two as necessarily equivalent.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is a legal theory that courts should rely on the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution and in other laws. Supreme Court justice [[Antonin Scalia]] is a prominent textualist. For a recent example of his view, see Zuni v Dept. of Education<ref>http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-1508.html</ref>, where there appeared to be a difference between the intent of a statute and its plain meaning.
+{{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is a legal theory that courts should rely on the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution and in other laws.  Where the text does not support the interpretation, the interpretation necessarily fails.  Supreme Court justice [[Antonin Scalia]] is a prominent textualist. For a recent example of his view, see Zuni v Dept. of Education<ref>http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-1508.html</ref>, where there appeared to be a difference between the intent of a statute and its plain meaning.
 == References ==
 <references />

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, April 26, 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is a legal theory that courts should rely on the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution and in other laws. Supreme Court justice [[Antonin Scalia]] is a prominent textualist. For a recent example of his view, see Zuni v Dept. of Education<ref>http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-1508.html</ref>, where there appeared to be a difference between the intent of a statute and its plain meaning.		{{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is a legal theory that courts should rely on the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution and in other laws. Supreme Court justice [[Antonin Scalia]] is a prominent textualist. For a recent example of his view, see Zuni v Dept. of Education<ref>http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-1508.html</ref>, where there appeared to be a difference between the intent of a statute and its plain meaning.
		+
		+	== References ==
		+	<references />

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:54, April 26, 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	{{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is a legal theory that courts should rely on the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution and in other laws. Supreme Court justice [[Antonin Scalia]] is a prominent textualist. For a recent example of his view, see Zuni v Dept. of Education<ref>http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-1508.html</ref>, where there appeared to be a difference between the intent of a statute and its ~~plane~~ meaning.	+	{{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is a legal theory that courts should rely on the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution and in other laws. Supreme Court justice [[Antonin Scalia]] is a prominent textualist. For a recent example of his view, see Zuni v Dept. of Education<ref>http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-1508.html</ref>, where there appeared to be a difference between the intent of a statute and its plain meaning.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:54, April 26, 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	{{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is ~~the idea~~ that ~~the meaning of the Constitution can be inferred from~~ the plain meaning of the words ~~themselves. Where~~ the ~~words are lacking to support a constitutional argument, the constitutional basis is thereby lacking, too~~. [[Antonin Scalia]] is a prominent textualist, ~~and is known for advocating~~ a ~~reading of constitutional text through~~ the ~~lens that provided the framework for the mindset~~ of ~~the framers~~.	+	{{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is a legal theory that courts should rely on the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution and in other laws. Supreme Court justice [[Antonin Scalia]] is a prominent textualist. For a recent example of his view, see Zuni v Dept. of Education<ref>http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-1508.html</ref>, where there appeared to be a difference between the intent of a statute and its plane meaning.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:05, April 26, 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	{{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is the idea that the meaning of the Constitution can be inferred from the plain meaning of the words themselves. Where the words are lacking to support a constitutional argument, ~~so is~~ the constitutional basis. [[Antonin Scalia]] is a prominent textualist, and is known for advocating a reading of constitutional text through the lens that provided the framework for the mindset of the framers.	+	{{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is the idea that the meaning of the Constitution can be inferred from the plain meaning of the words themselves. Where the words are lacking to support a constitutional argument, the constitutional basis is thereby lacking, too. [[Antonin Scalia]] is a prominent textualist, and is known for advocating a reading of constitutional text through the lens that provided the framework for the mindset of the framers.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:00, April 26, 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	{{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is the idea that the meaning of the Constitution can be inferred from the plain meaning of the words themselves. Where the words are lacking to support a constitutional argument, so is the constitutional basis. [[Antonin Scalia]] is a prominent textualist.	+	{{discrimlaw}}'''Textualism''' is the idea that the meaning of the Constitution can be inferred from the plain meaning of the words themselves. Where the words are lacking to support a constitutional argument, so is the constitutional basis. [[Antonin Scalia]] is a prominent textualist, and is known for advocating a reading of constitutional text through the lens that provided the framework for the mindset of the framers.