Understanding Written Law and Justice Scalia’s Approach to Statutory Interpretation
Understanding and Interpreting Written Law
Written laws are interpreted by courts to ease the public’s understanding of laws, provide opportunities for the evolution of written laws, and favor their application in changing conditions. However, there are different ways in which courts and judges can interpret legislation. Thus, while some judicial opinions focus on interpreting the legislature’s intent, clear statutes leave no room for interpretation. Moreover, in cases of ambiguity in newly enacted statutes, the interpretation should be compatible with previous laws (Scalia 214). Therefore, while generally written laws should be understood and interpreted following their intent, such interpretation can often be hindered.
The Meaning and Limits of Freedom of Speech and Press
Scalia uses the example of the First Amendment’s provision of freedom of speech or the press to demonstrate how the legislature’s intent can be defined using specific formulations. Thus, one can suggest that freedom of speech and the press can mean a ban on censorship in all communication channels (Scalia 216). I believe the formulation that unites speech and press implies all forms of communication people use. Therefore, in emphasizing the importance of communication, the legislature allows freedom for all methods of personal correspondence. However, freedom cannot extend to distributing prohibited materials since communication cannot be considered.
Defining “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” and Its Boundaries
Furthermore, the Constitution prohibits using cruel and unusual forms of punishment, such as torture or beheading. However, the Constitution does not prohibit the death penalty, even though it can be considered a cruel form of punishment. In my opinion, the statement regarding cruel and unusual punishment refers to the Constitution’s prioritization of humane and equal treatment of all people. For example, in some countries, amputation of hands and feet is used as a form of punishment that marks perpetrators. Therefore, the ban on cruel and unusual punishment can be perceived as a continuation of the Constitution’s idea of equality of people.
Addressing Changes in Word Meanings Over Time in Law
Addressing the changes in the meaning of words requires assistance from people aware of the legislature and its changes. Judges and courts can continue helping interpret laws and increasing the public’s understanding of their intent. Furthermore, old laws can be adapted for further changes in the meanings of words. Additionally, future laws and legislature should avoid the form of clear statutes to support their evolution in the future, with changes in the meaning of words.
Justice Scalia on Legislative Intent and Statutory Interpretation
Scalia’s argument for the problem of interpreting statutes based on the legislature’s intent focuses on the influence of modern law-changing decisions. Thus, the permission to own firearms does not imply unlimited permission for people to use all types of weapons for personal purposes. However, in modern perception, many view the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right given to American citizens.
Guides to Determining the Objective Intent of a Law
Scalia suggested that legislative intent in defining lawmakers’ initial intentions can be subjective. Scalia proposed the concept of objective intent as an alternative that focuses on defining a rational basis for the law’s content and analyzing its place in the existing body of law. In Smith’s case, Scalia’s understanding of objective intent emphasized the lack of direct use of firearms in trading them for drugs.
Textualism vs. Strict Constructionism from Scalia’s Perspective
Scalia explicitly addresses the differences between textualism and strict constructionism. Thus, he associates textualism with attention to the social purposes of the statute and the realization that new times require new laws. Furthermore, Scalia positions strict constructionism as a “degraded” form of textualism (215). In his explanation, the author states that texts should not be constructed and interpreted strictly, as it “brings the whole philosophy to disrepute” (Scalia 215). Thus, the distinction between textualism and strict constructionism in Scalia’s perception is that strict constructionism leaves no room for reasonability and fairness.
Interpreting “Use” in Smith v. US: Purpose and Legislative Intent
I agree with Scalia’s opinion on the ambiguity in the law. However, Congress’s intention when passing the law under which Smith was prosecuted is unclear. The sale of firearms is not prohibited in the US, while the sale of automatic weapons was banned after Smith’s sentence enhancement. Therefore, I would convict Smith as his use of automatic weapons for sale or exchange presents an equal degree of danger to the population as the use of a weapon.
Work Cited
Scalia, Antonin. “The Role of U.S. Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution.” Philosophical Problems in the Law, edited by David M. Adams, Cengage Learning, 2013, pp. 214-235.