What is Textualism?
Textualism is a method of statutory interpretation that emphasizes the literal meaning of the words in a statute, without considering the intent of the legislators or the consequences of a particular interpretation. This approach to interpretation focuses on the written word and gives little weight to extrinsic factors such as legislative history or policy considerations.
Textualists argue that the meaning of a statute can be discerned from the words themselves, without reference to external sources or interpretive tools. They believe that the law should be applied as written, and that judges should not impose their own views or policies on the law. Instead, they should apply the law as it is written, regardless of the consequences.
Textualism has been associated with conservative legal scholars and judges, who argue that it provides a more limited and predictable role for judges in the interpretation of statutes. Critics of textualism, on the other hand, argue that it can lead to absurd results and undermine the purpose of the law.
Some examples of textualism include:
1. The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Lopez (1995), which held that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Court interpreted the statute based on its literal language, without considering the broader policy implications of the law.
2. The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Court interpreted the text of the amendment based on its plain meaning, without considering the intent of the framers or the consequences of a different interpretation.
3. The Supreme Court's decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), which held that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain employers provide health insurance to their employees exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Court interpreted the statute based on its literal language, without considering the broader policy implications of the law.
4. The Supreme Court's decision in Gundy v. United States (2019), which held that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act's retroactive application to certain sex offenders was unconstitutional. The Court interpreted the statute based on its plain meaning, without considering the intent of Congress or the consequences of a different interpretation.
In summary, textualism is a method of statutory interpretation that emphasizes the literal meaning of the words in a statute, without considering the intent of the legislators or the consequences of a particular interpretation. It has been associated with conservative legal scholars and judges, who argue that it provides a more limited and predictable role for judges in the interpretation of statutes. However, critics of textualism argue that it can lead to absurd results and undermine the purpose of the law.
I like this
I dislike this
Report a content error
Share
