Conversation Between a Statute and an Intentionalist, 2
Statute: “I asked you a question.”
Intentionalist:
Statute: “A few, actually.”
Intentionalist:
Statute: “If a man voted for me but didn’t read me, how can you say he has an intent that fixes the meaning of my words? What is his intent if he didn’t even read me?”
Intentionalist:
Statute: “If one group voted for me intending me to mean one thing, and another voted for me intending me to mean another, which do I mean?”
Intentionalist:
Intentionalist:
Intentionalist:
Statute: “You can’t answer any of this, can you?”*
Intentionalist:
Intentionalist:
Intentionalist:
Intentionalist: [Deletes trackback.]
Statute: Oh — and you really ought to correct that falsehood you told about Leviticus.
Patterico (c218bd) — 5/18/2010 @ 7:20 amWhich do you mean?
Whichever one the judge prefers.
The rule of law is not what is intended.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 5/18/2010 @ 7:29 amIf statutes could talk and pose questions this whole discussion would be moot. And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
In any event, I notice that you haven’t directly addressed my previous example: why is a textualist like Scalia permitted to look at legislative intent in one instance (administrative law), but not in another (criminal law)? What is the principled distinction to be drawn here?
[Andrew: please take your complaint to the appropriate thread. It is off topic here. If you want to discuss Scalia’s views, there is a thread for that, and you are welcome to discuss it there. Contrary to your claims, I did answer you in the appropriate thread. — P]
[UPDATE 5-2010 6:15 p.m.: Now that the false charge has been made that I banned Andrew, I want to make it clear: Andrew was not banned. I asked him to take his complaints to another thread where I had answered his comment in more than one comment. I know it is standard procedure for the Protein Wisdom crowd to falsely claim that people have disappeared and left no comments — Goldstein told that lie about Leviticus recently, for example, and has failed to retract despite my numerous requests that he do so.
I never banned Andrew and merely asked him to take his complaints to the on-topic thread. The person who has been squelching speech here is Goldstein, who has deleted numerous of my trackbacks to posts exposing the flaws in his logic. — P]
Andrew (ce9a90) — 5/18/2010 @ 7:39 amouch. that’ll leave a mark. cuz it seems to be true too often
quasimodo (4af144) — 5/18/2010 @ 8:10 amWhat gentlemen says and what they thinks is two diffrent things
Margaret Mitchell (af7312) — 5/18/2010 @ 12:14 pmSo now you’re… what? Criticizing Jeff for accepting the premise of your initial hypothetical? That ain’t Jeff’s problem. Are all of your hypotheticals trick questions, or did you want a serious discussion on this?
blah (7499b3) — 5/18/2010 @ 12:16 pmPoint made, is this going anywhere?
HeavenSent (a9126d) — 5/18/2010 @ 12:40 pmDear Sir,
It has come to our attention that the horse in question is dead.
Regards,
SPCA Anti-Flogging Division (fb8750) — 5/18/2010 @ 12:47 pmIma Bureaucrat
“So now you’re… what? Criticizing Jeff for accepting the premise of your initial hypothetical? That ain’t Jeff’s problem. Are all of your hypotheticals trick questions, or did you want a serious discussion on this?”
Where do I say this post relates to a hypothetical? To the extent it does, it’s a new one: assume a law is passed by people with conflicting intentions, or no intentions at all with respect to the disputed language. What does an intentionalist do with that?
I have asked him this many times, and the only answer is a non-answer: just because appealing to intent is hard doesn’t excuse failing to do it.
Bullshit. In my example it’s not hard to divine a single intent; it’s impossible.
Patterico (1c0cbc) — 5/18/2010 @ 1:23 pm“If a man voted for me but didn’t read me, how can you say he has an intent that fixes the meaning of my words? What is his intent if he didn’t even read me?”
A: Depends on how powerful the person in question is and how many sycophants surround him/her… but the intent begins in the mind.. unfortunately some people are intentionally intellectually dishonest.
B: His intent is/was to impose his intent upon your content… with great disregard to your text.. see intentionally dishonest above.
Statute: “If one group voted for me intending me to mean one thing, and another voted for me intending me to mean another, which do I mean?”
A: Depends on who you ask…
But once all the intent is put into text (statute) isn’t it let the buyer beware?
Do your due diligence… because in the hierarchy of intent, your intentions immediately after the fact don’t change the statute you signed yourself up for…
By the way, on one level of “intent” there are as many “intents” as there are minds in the room.
Steve G (7d4c78) — 5/18/2010 @ 1:51 pmThink of it as a million Lego’s
Then there is the intent Scalia blows past… the collaborative intent has already been turned into correctly crafted legal text
Think of it a bridge made of Lego’s (complete with the fire truck)
Ah, so this is just a shift in the discussion, then. Sorry, my mistake. In regards to the intent behind a bill, well, the legislature only really says “Yea” a couple hundred times, which we can reasonably interpret as “What (s)he said.”. They aren’t making a hundred individual messages or texts, they’re just agreeing with the one message in the bill.
But more the general point of this whole debate, textualism is intentionalist. It doesn’t mean we ever disregard the speaker’s intent. It means the text is our best bet at figuring out that intent. Not a sure thing, just the best bet.
blah (546c2e) — 5/18/2010 @ 9:25 pmIf you intended to comment, and typed a comment, and submitted a comment, but the comment does not appear, did you ever really intend to comment at all?
Have Blue (854a6e) — 5/18/2010 @ 9:37 pm“By the way, on one level of “intent” there are as many “intents” as there are minds in the room.
Think of it as a million Lego’s”
Carl Sagan call your office.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/18/2010 @ 9:37 pmSagan couldn’t get through…. Freud was on the line rambling on and on
SteveG (7d4c78) — 5/18/2010 @ 9:46 pmAnd hopefully Freud was doubling the dose of my medical marijuana prescription
SteveG (11baba) — 5/18/2010 @ 10:06 pm