Difference between revisions of "Textual"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(use actual example for Scalia's view)
(Words don't fly)
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.

Revision as of 13:54, 26 April 2007

Part of the series on
U.S. Discrimination Law
Const.gif
Standards of Review

Rational basis review
Intermediate scrutiny
Strict scrutiny

Other Legal Theories

Substantive due process
State action doctrine

Defining Moments in Law

The 14th Amendment
Plessy v. Ferguson
Brown v. Board of Education
Loving v. Virginia
U.S. v. Virginia
Romer v. Evans
Lawrence v. Texas

Modalities of Constitutional Law

Textual
Responsive

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.
  1. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-1508.html