Judicial interpretation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (October 2011) |
| This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2010) |
| Judicial Interpretation |
|---|
| Forms |
| Constitutional interpretation Statutory interpretation |
| General Rules of Interpretation |
| Plain meaning rule · Mischief rule · Golden rule |
| General Theories of Interpretation |
| Living Constitution/Living tree doctrine Originalism (Original meaning) Original intent (Legislative intent · Legislative history) Strict constructionism Textualism |
Judicial interpretation is a theory or mode of thought that explains how the judiciary should interpret the law, particularly constitutional documents and legislation (see statutory interpretation). An interpretation which results in or supports some form of law-making role for the judiciary in interpreting the law is sometimes pejoratively characterized as judicial activism, the opposite of which is judicial lethargy, with judicial restraint somewhere in between.
In the United States, theories of judicial interpretation range from originalism and strict constructionism to functionalism. The Constitution can be viewed as a Living Constitution or as The Moral Constitution.[citation needed]
[edit] See also
| Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Judicial interpretation |
- Constitutionalism
- Constitutional economics
- Rule according to higher law
- Judicial activism
- Separation of powers
- Statutory interpretation