United States
American jurist Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert Sacks, are considered early proponents of American purposivism. Their work helped to promote purposivism as a credible method of interpretation. Purposivism in the United States is considered a strain of originalism, alongside textualism and intentionalism. While the current focus of the interpretation debate is between textualism and intentionalism, the less popular purposivism is gaining favour. Purposivism in the United States is used to interpret a statute with broadly worded text and a seemingly clear purpose. When employing purposivism, the court is concerned with understanding the purpose or ‘spirit’ of the law. Once the purpose is identified, the text is then read accordingly. In order to determine and interpret the purpose of a statute, courts may consult extraneous aids.
The following extraneous aids have been ranked from least authoritative to most authoritative: subsequent history, nonlegislator proponents of drafters, rejected proposals, colloquy on floor & hearing, sponsor statements and committee reports. Each of these extraneous aids are given a corresponding weight to their position in the hierarchical ranking.
The academic literature indicates several variations of purposivism. For example Abbe Gluck said “There are different stripes of purposivists...” Jennifer M. Bandy stated, “Thus, Justice Breyer’s strain of purposivism focuses on understanding the law in relation to both the people who passed it and the people who must live with it.” Degrees of purposivism are sometimes referred to as ‘strong’ or ‘weak’.
As the Court's leading purposivist Justice Stephen Breyer considers determining and interpreting the purpose of a statute paramount. An apt example of Breyer's approach might be his dissent in Medellín v. Texas, where he faulted the court's construction of a treaty because "it looks for the wrong thing (explicit textual expression about self-execution) using the wrong standard (clarity) in the wrong place (the treaty language)"; in response, the Court "confess that we do think it rather important to look to the treaty language to see what it has to say about the issue. That is after all what the Senate looks to in deciding whether to approve the treaty."
As opposed to Justice Breyer’s strong form of purposivism, "weak purposivists" might consult the statute's purpose only as a device for interpreting vague provisions of its text, and in no circumstances to override the text.
Read more about this topic: Purposive Theory
Famous quotes related to united states:
“The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written.”
—Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945)
“When Mr. Apollinax visited the United States
His laughter tinkled among the teacups.
I thought of Fragilion, that shy figure among the birch-trees,
And of Priapus in the shrubbery
Gaping at the lady in the swing.”
—T.S. (Thomas Stearns)
“So here they are, the dog-faced soldiers, the regulars, the fifty-cents-a-day professionals riding the outposts of the nation, from Fort Reno to Fort Apache, from Sheridan to Stark. They were all the same. Men in dirty-shirt blue and only a cold page in the history books to mark their passing. But wherever they rode and whatever they fought for, that place became the United States.”
—Frank S. Nugent (1908–1965)
“In no other country in the world is the love of property keener or more alert than in the United States, and nowhere else does the majority display less inclination toward doctrines which in any way threaten the way property is owned.”
—Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859)
“Madam, I may be President of the United States, but my private life is nobody’s damn business.”
—Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886)