RSS   Twitter   Sign inLogin or Sign-up

Rehberg v. Paulk and CongressionalIntent

Written by olsonaplc-31a

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

If a judge were to interpret laws based on the judge’s belief of the legislature, or Congress, this would mean that a judge must know what the law meant when it was passed. The method of interpreting laws is a confusing, perhaps because your conscience or other outside forces get in your way, of making the lawful decision. The reason for interpreting laws is to focus on the main point of the case and to make sure you make the correct decision. If one was to find reasons against the interpretation of laws, perhaps may be some one who felt they were not given a fair law interpretation at court. It may also be, because they think that a judge’s own conscience of right and wrong should acceptable in a court case. Let us say that a judge were to supposed to attempt the meaning of Congress from 140 years ago, why would this be difficult? It may be difficult, because first, it takes a lot of time and patience to translate or decipher the language of 140 years ago. There is also the chance that people may think that because we are now in the 21st century, there should be no reason to interpret these laws, as long as American citizens understand them.


This post has been awarded the
Rehberg v. Paulk Badge (200 points)