Difference between revisions of "Textual"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Words don't fly) |
(add ref) |
||
| 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 /> | ||
Revision as of 18:55, April 26, 2007
| Part of the series on |
| U.S. Discrimination Law |
|
| Standards of Review |
| Other Legal Theories |
| Defining Moments in Law |
|
The 14th Amendment |
| Modalities of Constitutional Law |
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[1], where there appeared to be a difference between the intent of a statute and its plain meaning.