Rescinded Interpretation Act

[Babysoga4real]

A
BILL
To

Establish Interpretation Guidance in Law​

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Interpretation Act.'
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.
(3) This Act has been authored by Senate President xEndeavour
(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by Senate President xEndeavour

2 - Reasons
(1) This Act seeks to clarify and provide guidance on the principles of legal interpretation used within the Commonwealth of Redmont.

3 - Canons of Statutory Interpretation
(1) In the interpretation of statutes, courts shall give due regard to the established canons of statutory interpretation, to ensure that the application of the law does not result in absurdities, unjust outcomes, or contradictions. Courts must avoid interpretations that would lead to unreasonable or illogical consequences and, where necessary, apply these canons to interpret ambiguous or unclear statutory language in a manner consistent with the legislature’s intent and purpose.

4 - Core Canons of Statutory Interpretation

(1) Literal Rule
(a) Principle. Words are given their plain, ordinary meaning. Courts must follow the precise wording of the statute, even if it leads to an outcome that seems unjust.
(b) Use. Applied when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous.

(2) Mischief Rule
(a) Principle. The court examines the "mischief" or issue the statute was intended to remedy and interprets the statute in a way that addresses that problem.
(b) Use. Applied when the statute is vague and the purpose behind the law needs clarification.

(3) Golden Rule
(a) Principle. If applying the literal rule results in an absurd or unjust outcome, the court may modify the interpretation to avoid such an outcome.
(b) Use. Applied when a literal interpretation would lead to an absurd or undesirable result.

(4) Purposive Approach
(a) Principle. The statute is interpreted according to its overall purpose or the intention behind the law. This approach focuses on understanding the broader goals of the statute.
(b) Use. Applied when a statute’s language is ambiguous, and the court seeks to determine the legislative intent and spirit of the law.

5 - Additional Canons of Statutory Interpretation

(1) Ejusdem Generis (Of the Same Kind)
(a) Principle. When a general word follows a list of specific items, the general word is interpreted to include only items of the same kind as those listed.
(b) Example. "Cars, trucks, and other vehicles" would likely mean other vehicles of a similar nature, such as motorcycles.

(2) Noscitur a Sociis (Known by the Company It Keeps)
(a) Principle. A word or phrase is interpreted in the context of the words surrounding it. The meaning is shaped by the context in which it appears.
(b) Example. "Schools, universities, and other educational institutions" would be understood to refer to institutions like colleges, which are related to education.

(3) Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (The Expression of One Thing Is the Exclusion of Another)
(a) Principle. If a statute explicitly mentions certain things, it is presumed to exclude others not mentioned.
(b) Example. A law permitting "dogs and cats" as pets might be interpreted to exclude other animals, like birds.

(4) Legislative Intent
(a) Principle. Courts must seek the legislative intent behind a statute, particularly when the language is unclear.
(b) Use. Courts may rely on legislative history (e.g., debates, committee reports) to understand the intent behind the law.

(5) Presumption Against Infringing on Fundamental Rights
(a) Principle. Statutes should be interpreted in a way that respects fundamental rights, unless the statute explicitly limits them.
(b) Use. Applied when interpreting laws that may affect personal liberties or constitutional rights.

6 - Convention
(1) Conventions are not legally binding, but are recognised practices that must be considered in understanding how laws should apply in different contexts.
(a) Conventions are unwritten rules or long-established practices, though not codified in law, that significantly influence how law is applied and understood.