The Language of Argument

3 5 6

C H A P T E R 1 8 ■ L e g a l R e a s o n i n g

This works fine until one zoo puts a whale in its aquarium. The whale would

be in trouble if the courts stuck to the words of the ordinance. Fortunately,

the courts can also consider the intentions of the legislators, which can be

gleaned from their debates about the law. Of course, the city council might

not have thought at all about whales, or they might have thought that whales

are fish instead of mammals. Thus, if their intentions are what the legislators

consciously had in mind, then we also need to consider the deeper, more gen-

eral purpose of the legislators—the goal they were trying to reach or the moral

outlook they were trying to express. This purpose is revealed by the wider

historical context and by other laws made by the same legislature. In our ex-

ample, the purpose of the statute was obviously to provide a healthy envi-

ronment for mammals in zoos. This purpose is best served by interpreting

the ordinance so that it does not require dry cages for whales.

In addition to words, intentions, and purposes, moral beliefs are often used

to interpret statutes. Judges often argue that a statute should be interpreted

one way by claiming that any other interpretation would lead to some kind

of practical difficulty or moral unfairness. Such arguments are effective

when everyone agrees about what is immoral or unfair, but judges often de-

pend on more controversial moral beliefs. Critics claim that judges should

not use their own moral views in this way, but there is no doubt that many

or even all judges do in fact reason from such moral premises.

It should be clear that none of these methods of interpretation is mechanical,

and none guarantees a single best interpretation of every statute. Part of the

legal controversy is often over which factors can or should be used to argue for

an interpretation. When all is said and done, legal reasoning from statutes is of-

ten far from the straightforward deduction that it appears to be in simple cases.

the ConStitution. Even when a statute has been interpreted, it is sometimes

not clear whether the statute is valid—whether it has any legal force. This is

determined by the Constitution. The Constitution occupies a special place in

the legal system of the United States. If any statute conflicts with the Consti-

tution, including its amendments, that statute has no legal force. Generally

it is not the role of courts to enact laws, but the courts do have the power to

strike down laws if they conflict with provisions in our Constitution.

It is easy to imagine clear cases of laws that violate constitutional provi-

sions. If the state of Kansas began printing its own money, that would plainly

violate the constitutional provision that reserves this right to the federal gov-

ernment. But, typically, those constitutional questions that reach the courts

are not clear-cut. Even more so than statutes, provisions in the Constitution

are very general and sometimes vague. This vagueness serves a purpose:

The framers of the Constitution recognized that they could not foresee every

eventuality, so they wanted to allow future courts to interpret the Constitu-

tion as cases arose. But the vagueness of the Constitution also creates prob-

lems. Interpretations can often conflict and fuel controversy. As with statutes,

arguments for and against interpretations of the Constitution usually refer

97364_ch18_ptg01_351-382.indd 356 15/11/13 11:38 AM

some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,

affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.