|
The plain meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is one of three rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts.〔"The notion has long prevailed that three different rules or approaches may be employed in ascertaining the meaning of a statute. First, there is said to be the "purpose" approach or "mischief rule"....Then there is said to be the "literal" approach or "plain meaning" rule....Finally there is what is called the "golden rule".... Source: Elmer Driedger, ''Construction of Statutes''. Toronto: Butterworths, 1983, p. 1.〕 The other two are the “mischief rule” and the “golden rule.” The plain meaning rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute. In other words, a statute is to be read word for word and is to be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise or unless the result would be cruel or absurd. Ordinary words are given their ordinary meaning, technical terms are given their technical meaning, and local, cultural terms are recognized as applicable. The plain meaning rule is the mechanism that prevents courts from taking sides in legislative or political issues.〔http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/plain-meaning-rule/〕 Additionally, it is the mechanism that underlies textualism and, to a certain extent, originalism. == Meaning == To avoid ambiguity, legislatures often include "definitions" sections within a statute, which explicitly define the most important terms used in that statute.〔See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §1531(b) (defining "partial-birth abortion" as comprehended by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003).〕 But some statutes omit a definitions section entirely, or (more commonly) fail to define a particular term. The plain meaning rule attempts to guide courts faced with litigation that turns on the meaning of a term ''not'' defined by the statute, or on that of a word found within a definition itself. According to the plain meaning rule, absent a contrary definition within the statute, words must be given their plain, ordinary and literal meaning. If the words are clear, they must be applied, even though the intention of the legislator may have been different or the result is harsh or undesirable. The literal rule is what the law says instead of what the law was intended to say. Prof. Larry Solum expands on this premise: === Soft Plain Meaning Rule === Justices normally impose an absurdity limit on this rule, which states that a statute cannot be interpreted literally if it would lead to an absurd result. In the Supreme Court ''Chung Fook v. White'' (1924) marked the beginning of the looser American Rule that the intent of the law was more important than its text. This is sometimes termed the ''soft plain meaning rule'', where the statute is interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless the result would be cruel or absurd. For example, see ''Rector, Holy Trinity Church v. United States'', 143 U.S. 457 (1892). Even the most vocal supporters of textualism and the plain meaning rule have been willing to commute "strict" plain meaning to "soft" plain meaning to a certain extent, in some circumstances; see, e.g. ''United States v. X-Citement Video'', (513 U.S. 64 ) (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting): In the United Kingdom, this is referred to as the Golden Rule. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 Justices normally impose an absurdity limit on this rule, which states that a statute cannot be interpreted literally if it would lead to an absurd result. In the Supreme Court ''Chung Fook v. White'' (1924) marked the beginning of the looser American Rule that the intent of the law was more important than its text.This is sometimes termed the ''soft plain meaning rule'', where the statute is interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless the result would be cruel or absurd. For example, see ''Rector, Holy Trinity Church v. United States'', 143 U.S. 457 (1892). Even the most vocal supporters of textualism and the plain meaning rule have been willing to commute "strict" plain meaning to "soft" plain meaning to a certain extent, in some circumstances; see, e.g. ''United States v. X-Citement Video'', (513 U.S. 64 ) (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting):In the United Kingdom, this is referred to as the Golden Rule.">ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■Justices normally impose an absurdity limit on this rule, which states that a statute cannot be interpreted literally if it would lead to an absurd result. In the Supreme Court ''Chung Fook v. White'' (1924) marked the beginning of the looser American Rule that the intent of the law was more important than its text.This is sometimes termed the ''soft plain meaning rule'', where the statute is interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless the result would be cruel or absurd. For example, see ''Rector, Holy Trinity Church v. United States'', 143 U.S. 457 (1892). Even the most vocal supporters of textualism and the plain meaning rule have been willing to commute "strict" plain meaning to "soft" plain meaning to a certain extent, in some circumstances; see, e.g. ''United States v. X-Citement Video'', (513 U.S. 64 ) (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting):In the United Kingdom, this is referred to as the Golden Rule.">ウィキペディアで「The plain meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is one of three rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts."The notion has long prevailed that three different rules or approaches may be employed in ascertaining the meaning of a statute. First, there is said to be the "purpose" approach or "mischief rule"....Then there is said to be the "literal" approach or "plain meaning" rule....Finally there is what is called the "golden rule".... Source: Elmer Driedger, ''Construction of Statutes''. Toronto: Butterworths, 1983, p. 1. The other two are the “mischief rule” and the “golden rule.”The plain meaning rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute. In other words, a statute is to be read word for word and is to be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise or unless the result would be cruel or absurd. Ordinary words are given their ordinary meaning, technical terms are given their technical meaning, and local, cultural terms are recognized as applicable. The plain meaning rule is the mechanism that prevents courts from taking sides in legislative or political issues.http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/plain-meaning-rule/ Additionally, it is the mechanism that underlies textualism and, to a certain extent, originalism.== Meaning ==To avoid ambiguity, legislatures often include "definitions" sections within a statute, which explicitly define the most important terms used in that statute.See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §1531(b) (defining "partial-birth abortion" as comprehended by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003). But some statutes omit a definitions section entirely, or (more commonly) fail to define a particular term. The plain meaning rule attempts to guide courts faced with litigation that turns on the meaning of a term ''not'' defined by the statute, or on that of a word found within a definition itself.According to the plain meaning rule, absent a contrary definition within the statute, words must be given their plain, ordinary and literal meaning. If the words are clear, they must be applied, even though the intention of the legislator may have been different or the result is harsh or undesirable. The literal rule is what the law says instead of what the law was intended to say.Prof. Larry Solum expands on this premise:=== Soft Plain Meaning Rule === Soft plain meaning rule redirects here -->Justices normally impose an absurdity limit on this rule, which states that a statute cannot be interpreted literally if it would lead to an absurd result. In the Supreme Court ''Chung Fook v. White'' (1924) marked the beginning of the looser American Rule that the intent of the law was more important than its text.This is sometimes termed the ''soft plain meaning rule'', where the statute is interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless the result would be cruel or absurd. For example, see ''Rector, Holy Trinity Church v. United States'', 143 U.S. 457 (1892). Even the most vocal supporters of textualism and the plain meaning rule have been willing to commute "strict" plain meaning to "soft" plain meaning to a certain extent, in some circumstances; see, e.g. ''United States v. X-Citement Video'', (513 U.S. 64 ) (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting):In the United Kingdom, this is referred to as the Golden Rule.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|