5 Legislative historyWord格式.docx
- 文档编号:17894132
- 上传时间:2022-12-11
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:11
- 大小:24.68KB
5 Legislative historyWord格式.docx
《5 Legislative historyWord格式.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《5 Legislative historyWord格式.docx(11页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
3.Beginningaround1940,thingsbegantochange.TheCourtincreasedrelianceonlegislativehistory.(moreopen-endedstatutes)
4.Beginninginthe1980s,somenewtextualistsbegantochallengethelegitimacyandreliabilityoflegislativehistoryasanindicatorofstatutorymeaning.
5.Leadtoanoticeablereductionintheuseoflegislativehistory.
6.Avigorousdebateaboutthenatureoftheinterpretiveenterprise
Thetextualistcritiqueoflegislativehistory
1.Questionedtheutilityoflegislativehistoryasawindowintocollectivelegislativeintent
2.RaisedconstitutionalconcernsrootedinArticleone,Section7'
bicameralismandpresentmentrequirements
3.Asomewhatvaguerconceptionthatjudgesimpermissiblyacquireaddedpolicymakingdiscretionbyrelyingonlegislativehistory
Blanchardv.Bergeron(1989)
Facts:
Blanchard(P)wasawarded$10000indamages.Andaccordingtosection1988,hewasawarded$7500attorneysfees.Thecourtofappealsreducedthefeeawardto$4000,whichistheamountinhis40%contingent-feearrangementwithhislawyer.Andthecourtthoughtitwasthecap.
Statutorylanguage:
acourt"
initsdiscretion,mayallowareasonableattorney'
sfee"
toaprevailingpartyinfederalcivilrightsactionsundersection1983
Issue:
whethertheawardmustbelimitedtotheamountprovidedinacontingent-feeagreement(whatdoes"
reasonable"
mean)
Reasoning:
Majority:
JusticeWhite
4.ThecourtturnedtheirattentiontoJohnson,acasedecidedbeforetheenactmentofSection1983.
5.JohnsonprovidedguidancetoCongress'
intentbecauseboththeHouseandSenateReportsrefertothe12factorssetforthinJohnsonforassessingthereasonablenessofanattorney'
sfeeaward.(andthesixthfactoris"
whetherthefeeisfixedorcontingent"
)
6.ThelanguageinJohnson:
∙Firststatement:
Sucharrangementshouldnotdeterminethecourt'
sdecision.Thecriterionforthecourtisnotwhatthepartiesagreebutwhatisreasonable.(infavorofP)
∙Secondstatement:
Innoevent,shouldthelitigantbeawardedafeegreaterthanheiscontractuallyboundtopay.ThisstatementwasneverdisownedintheCircuit.(infavorofD)
7.TheCourtdoubtedthatCongressembracedthesecondstatementofJohnson,foritpointedtothreeDistrictCourtcases.
8.Thosethreecasesclarifythatthefeearrangementisbutasinglefactorandnotdeterminative.
Concurringinpartandconcurringinthejudgment:
JusticeScalia
9.Disagreewithmajority'
sopinionaboutJohnsonandthefollowingthreeDistrictCourtcases.
10.TheCourtcarefullyexaminedthoseopinionsoflowercourtsforbothSenateandHouseReportrefertoJohnsonandSenateReportalonerefertothethreeDistrictCourtcases.
11.TheCourtresolvedthecontradictsbyconcludingthatthefirststatementisholdingandthesecondisdictum.
12.TheHouseReportreferredonlytoJohnson.SothedoubtfromthemajoritythatthecongressembracedthesecondaspectofJohnsonmaybeunacceptable.
13.Congressiselectedtoenactstatutesratherthanpointtocases.
14.OnlyasmallproportionoftheMembersofCongressreadeitheroneoftheCommitteeReports.Andveryfewofthosecheckedoutwhatwasreallysaidinthefourcases.
15.ThepurposeofthosereferenceswasnotprimarilytoinformtheMembersofCongresswhatthebillmeant,butrathertoinfluencejudicialconstruction.
16.ThereportsareunreliableevidenceofwhatthevotingMembersofCongressactuallyhadinmind.
17.Today'
sopinionadmirablyfollowsourmorerecentapproachofseekingtodevelopaninterpretationofthestatutethatisreasonable,consistent,andfaithfultoitsapparentpurpose,ratherthantoachieveobedientadherencetocasescitedinthecommitteereports.
ContinentalCanCompany,Inc.v.ChicagoTruckDrivers,Helpers,andWarehouseWorkersUnion(7thCir.1990)
Statute:
Substantiallyallofthecontributionsrequiredundertheplanaremadebyemployersprimarilyengagedinthelongandshorthaultruckinghistory.
18.Substantiallyallsoundslikelessthanall,butnotmuchless.
19.WhyCongressdidnotenactapercentageinthefirstplace:
Perhaps,substantiallyallisanattractivestandardbecauseitenablesMembersofCongresstosaydifferentthingstodifferentinterestgroups.
20.TheHousepassedthebill.TheSenate'
samendmentsaddedaspecialruleforthetruckingbusiness.
21.Mr.ThompsontoldtheHouseofRepresentativesthatsubstantiallyallmeansatleast85percent.(SincethisamendmentoriginatedintheSenatewithoutMr.Thompson'
sparticipation.)
22.Thehousepassedthelegislation.Onedayafter,theSenatepassedthebill.AfterbothHouseandSenatehadagreedonthelanguage,SenatorDurenbergerexplainedthesubstantiallyallmeansthemajority.
23.Later,thechambersheldaconference.Butthispointwasnotmentionedintheconference.
24.Later,PresidentCartersignedthebill.
25.ButsenatorDurenbergerinsertedintotheCongressionalRecordanotherstatementtosaythatMr.Thompsoniswrongandheisright.
26.Thompsondidnotfileasurrebuttal.
27.MembersofHousewereentitledtoformeithertheirownunderstandingofthelanguagebeforedecidingwhethertoenactit.
28.Thompson'
sspecificstatementofAugust25andDurenberger'
svagueoneofAugust26weretheonlyonesonpaper.
29.Thetextofthestatute,andnottheprivateintentofthelegislators,isthelaw.Onlythetextsurvivedthecomplexprocessforproposing,amending,adopting,andobtainingthePresident'
ssignature.
30.Sothetextislawandlegislativeintentisjustacluetothemeaningofthetext.
31."
Substantiallyall"
hasaspeciallegalmeaning.Congressusesitallthetimeintaxstatutesmeaning85%.
32.OnlyDurenbergerused"
substantiallyall"
tosignify50.1%ratherthan85%.HistwocommentscouldnotinfluenceanyoneintheHouseandprobablydidnotcometotheattentionofanyoneintheSenate.
33.Effortsofthiskindtochangethemeaningofatextwithoutbotheringtochangethetextitselfdemonstratewhytheuseoflegislativehistoryhascomeundersuchvigorousattack.
Notes:
Theformalistargument:
legislativehistoryisnotlaw.
34.ThereisnolegitimateormeaningfulnotionoflegislativeintentbeyondtheobjectifiedintentmanifestinthesemanticmeaningofthewordsofthestatutethatCongressenacted.
35.Onlythetextofthestatute,notthesubjectiveintentionsofindividuallegislators,isthelaw.
36.LegislativehistorylackslegitimacybecauseithasnotgonethroughtheconstitutionallymandatoryprocessrequiredbyArticleone,sectionseven.
37.Criticsofmoderntextualismcontendthatthetextualists'
argumentmisunderstandswhyandhowjudgesconsultlegislativehistory.
38.Nooneclaimsthelegislativehistoryisthelaw.Ratheritishelpfulintryingtounderstandthemeaningofthewordsthatmakeupthestatuteor"
law"
.
39.Textualistsrelyonallsortsofextrinsic,unenactedmaterials(likedictionaries)tointerpretstatutes.IfthoseextrinsicsourcesdonotoffendArticleone,sectionseven,whywouldlegislativehistorycreatedifficulties?
DoesjudicialuseoflegislativehistoryfacilitatecircumventionofArticleone?
40.Textualistsrespondedthatlegislativehistoryisqualitativelydifferentfromotherextrinsicaidsbecauselegislativeactorsareresponsibleforgeneratinglegislativehistory,andmayoftendosowiththeprimaryorsoleintentofinfluencingjudicialinterpretation.
41.SotheprincipalconcernbecomesthatlegislatorsandinterestgroupsmaydeliberatelyuselegislativehistoryasawaytocircumventtheArticleone,Sectionsevenprocess.
42.Textualistsarguethatprivateinterestgroupsofteninducelegislatorstocreatefavorablelegislativehistorytoachieveprivate-interestgoalsthatgroupswouldnotbeabletopersuadetheentireCongresstoendorse.
43.Theyaretruesomeofthetime.Itisverylikelythatmostlegislatorsknewonlyofthegeneralpurposeofapieceoflegislation.Asforthedetailsofitsarticulation,theyaccepttheworkofthecommittees.
44.Delegationtheory:
Ifastatutehasbeencarefullyconsideredbycommitteesfamiliarwiththesubjectmatter,RepresentativesandSenatorsmayappropriatelyrelyontheviewsofthecommitteemembersincastingtheirvotes.
45.ThefirstprovisionoftheConstitutionforbidsit.Articleone,Sectionone,alllegislativepowershereingrantedshallbevestedinaCongressoftheUnitedStates.Ithasalwaysbeenassumedthatthesepowersarenondelegable.
Iscollectivelegislativeintentacoherentconcept?
46.Subjectivelegislativeintentissimplyanincoherentconcept.
47.Evenifthelegislatorsvoteforthesamestatutorycontext,theirintentsmaystillbequitedifferent.
48.Itmaynotbepossibletousemajorityruletoaggregateindividualpreferencesintoaconsistentcollectivechoice.
49.Thisisnotinvariablytrue.
Theprobativevalueoflegislativehistory
50.Textualistsarguethateventhereweresuchathingasthecollectiveintentofthelegislature,courtsstillshouldno
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- Legislative history