Conversation Between a Statute, an Intentionalist, a Rabbi, a Priest, Justice Scalia, a Bookshelf Builder, and a Con Artist
Statute: “Hey, you finally answered the question.”
Intentionalist: “What question?”
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: “Oh, right. The corporate intent of a multi-authored / ratified document is the collection of all the individual intentions that are used to signify the text as text. And, just as before, those individual intentions that don’t get signaled can be dismissed . . .”
Statute: “Yeah . . . but the part where you say that an interpreter can ‘dismiss’ any ‘individual intentions that don’t get signaled’ — isn’t that just another way of saying that the judge can and should ignore lawmakers’ private intentions in favor of the plain meaning of the text? And isn’t that, well, textualism? And isn’t that what Frey has been advocating all along?”
Intentionalist:
Statute: “How far does this principle you articulate of dismissing unsignaled intentions go? I have some friends who have some questions too.”
Justice Scalia: “If you are a textualist, you don’t care about the intent, and I don’t care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. Sounds like you agree; if the framers had some ‘individual intentions that [didn’t] get signaled’ then those intentions ‘can be dismissed’ — right? Sounds like I knew what I was doing after all!”
Con artist: “Are you saying that if I don’t signal my intentions because I am trying to defraud someone, a judge can ignore (or “dismiss”) my private intentions and rule according to the plain language of the contract — interpreting my words as they would fairly be understood by a reasonable audience? Isn’t that what it means to sanction ‘dismissing’ any ‘individual intentions that [didn’t] get signaled’?”
Bookshelf builder: “So you agree with Frey that I am justified in taking these ironically written instructions, ignoring any ironic intent, and using them as written to build a bookshelf? After all, the instruction writer didn’t signal his intentions. What’s more — even if he did, aren’t I still justified in building the bookshelf, even if that means ignoring the writer’s intent?”
Statute: “I just don’t get it. If you’re all of a sudden arguing that intentions that don’t get signaled can be ‘dismissed,’ then what the hell have you been arguing about all this time?”
Intentionalist:
Statute: “And are you ever going to apologize to Leviticus for lying about him?”
Intentionalist:
Intentionalist:
Intentionalist:
Intentionalist: [Blocks trackback.]
Rabbi: “Oy. I have no idea what the hell this was about, but I am going into a bar.”
Priest “Me too.”