Legislation - Campos- Paper- Fall 2006- 92

Legislation - Campos- Paper- Fall 2006- 92 - Legislation:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Legislation: Final Paper Here was the assignment: Topic: How, in your view, should judges go about deciding questions of statutory interpretation? Specifically, how much weight, if any, should be given to considerations such as the apparent plain meaning of a statutory text, the intention of the enacting legislature, precedent, the purposes of the legislation, sound social policy, fundamental ideas of justice, and integrating the interpretation of the statute in question into a more general interpretation of the law as a whole? Are there any other factors that a judge should consider when engaging in the practice of statutory interpretation? My grade was 92 (I believe), which was at least among the highest grades in the class. I think this paper may help you understand what Campos is looking for with these papers. That said, however, I do think that it is difficult to know how write for Campos, and hard to know exactly what he’s looking for. Please make sure that you don’t use actual language or ideas from this paper, as that constitutes an Honor Code VIOLATION. 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Legislation: Final Paper December 21, 2006 A Malignant Fiction “The meaning of terms on the statute books ought to be determined, not on the basis of which meaning can be shown to have been understood by a larger handful of the Members of Congress; but rather on the basis of which meaning is (1) most in accord with context and ordinary usage, and thus most likely to have been understood by the whole Congress (not to mention the citizens subject to it), and (2) most compatible with the surrounding body of law into which the provision must be integrated – a compatibility which, by a benign fiction, we assume Congress always has in mind.” -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia 1 “When an artist creates, whatever they create belongs to society.” -- Cartoon Character Kyle Broflovski 2 I believe the cartoon character makes the better point. In the South Park episode “Free Hat,” the animated schoolchildren confront fictional versions of the movie directors George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. In the episode, those directors claim that they are entitled to digitally alter Star Wars and E.T. because, as the creators of those movies, they possess the only authoritative understandings of those works. Countering the directors’ argument, the schoolchildren argue that the creator of an artistic work is not the only person with an authoritative interpretation of that work. Not only does Mr. Broflovski say that an artist’s work belongs to the society for which it is created, but Stan Marsh explains why that is the case. In response to Lucas’ claim that “These are my movies [because] I made them,” Mr. Marsh explains, “You're wrong, Mr. Lucas. They're not your movies. They're ours. All of ours. We paid to go see them, and they're just as much a part of our lives as they are of yours.” In the Supreme Court case Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Company , Justice Scalia
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/12/2008 for the course LAW 6128 taught by Professor Campose during the Fall '06 term at Colorado.

Page1 / 15

Legislation - Campos- Paper- Fall 2006- 92 - Legislation:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online