Volume 06 Issue 12 December 2023
Donald L. Buresh, Ph.D., Esq.
Morgan State University
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i12-19Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
This essay aims to illustrate how to use effectively the theories of intentionalism, textualism, purposivism, the principle of lenity and the absurd doctrine when a statute or a case is the focus of the analysis. Legislative intent and legislative history of a statute or a case are paramount in this effort. The benefit of using these tools in evaluating federal and state laws cannot be underestimated. Many legal scholars, practitioners, and students will likely find these techniques valuable. The legal analytical technique of issue, rule, analysis, and conclusion (IRAC) is of fundamental importance when conducting a legal analysis. However, theories of intentionalism, textualism, purposivism, the duty of lenity, and the absurd doctrine are used in the analysis section of an IRAC argument. They increase the competence in the legal profession when fashioning arguments. The more tools that are in a legal scholar’s, practitioner’s, or student’s tool bag, the stronger their arguments, provided that the instruments are used correctly. The intent of this essay is to help those in the legal profession as well as law students use the right tools at the right time. It should be remembered when the only tool that one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Thus, adding tools to an individual’s legal tool bag is the goal of this essay.
KEYWORDS:Absurd Doctrine Intentionalism Legislative History Legislative Intent Lenity Purposivism Textualism
REFERENCES1) Basal,Merriam-WebsterDictionary(n.d.),availableat https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/basal#:~:text=%3A%20of%20or%20relating%20to%20the,a%20basal%20diet.
2) BRYAN A. GARNER (CHIEF ED.), BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (8th ed.1999).
3) Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. 682 (2014), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/682/#tab-opinion-1970980.
4) City of Boerne v. Flores, 52U.S. 507 (1997), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/507/.
5) David S. Romantz, Reconstructing the Rule of Lenity, 40 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 2, available at https://cardozolawreview.com/reconstructing-the-rule-of-lenity/.
6) Dodge v. Ford, 204 Mich. 459, 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919), available at https://casetext.com/case/dodge-v-ford-motor-co.
7) Equal Protection: Strict Scrutiny of Racial Classifications,
Congressional Research Service (Apr. 27, 2023), available at https:
//crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12391#:~:
text=To%20pass%20the%20strict%20scrutiny,only%20criteria%20used%20to%20classify.
8) Eric Black, The What and Why of King v. Burwell — and What’s at Stake for Health-Care Access, MinnPost (Jun. 14, 2015), available at https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2015/06/what-and-why-king-v-burwell-and-whats-stake-health-care-access/?gad=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0vvt7vzj_wIVeg-zAB3NXA2OEAAYAiAAEgIJlfD_BwE.
9) Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/418/.
10) 2402 Hobbs Act – Generally, United States Department of Justice Archives (Jan. 17, 2020), available at https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/crim.inal-resource-manual-2402-hobbs-act-generally.
11) IL SB0558 | 2023-2024 | 103rd General Assembly, LegiScan (n.d.), available at https://legiscan.com/IL/bill/SB0558/2023.
12) Jamie Blaker, Is Intentionalist Theory Indispensable to Statutory Interpretation?, 43 MONASH UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 1, 238-73 (2017), available at https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1092680/07_Blaker.pdf.
13) Jennifer Sekula, Legislative History Research (Federal):
The Process, Cornell Library at Vermont Law &
Graduate School (Apr. 24, 2023), available at https://libguides.vermontlaw.edu/LegislativeHistory#:~:text=Legislative%20History%20is%20made%20up,legislative%20intent%20of%20a%20statute.
14) Joshua Knobe, Do Corporations Have Minds?, The New York Times (Jun. 15, 2015), available at https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/do-corporations-have-minds/.
15) King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), available at https://casetext.com/case/king-v-burwell-2.
16) Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/323/214/.
17) Ladner v. United States, 358 U.S. 169, 178 (1958), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/358/169/).
18) Legislative History, Merriam-Webster Dictionary (n.d.), available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/legislative%20history.
19) Legislative Intent, Ballotpedia (n.d.), available at
https://ballotpedia.org/Legislative_intent#:~:text=
Legislative%20intent%20is%20a%20practice,time%20of%20a%20bill's%20passage.
20) Legislative Intent, Merriam-Webster Dictionary (n.d.), available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/legislative%20intent.
21) Mark Greenberg, Legal Interpretations, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Jul. 7, 2021), available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-interpretation/.
22) Michael D. Cicchini, The New Absurdity Doctrine, 125 PENN STATE LAW REVIEW 2, 353-87, available at https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Article-1-Cicchini-New-Absurdity-Doctrine.pdf.
23) Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 138-39 (1998), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/125/#tab-opinion-1960345.
24) PAUL KRUGMAN AND ROBIN WELLS, MICROECONOMICS (4th ed. 2015), available at https://www.academia.edu/43024032/_Paul_Krugman_Robin_Wells_Microeconomics_z_lib_org_.
25) People v. Ryan, 274 N.Y. 149 (1937), available at https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59147de4add7b04934447771.
26) Proposed 220 ILCS 5/17-1000 (b).
27) Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4.
28) Purposivism, Merriam-Webster Dictionary (n.d.), available at https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/purposivism#:~:text=pur·%E2%80%8Bpos·%E2%80%8Biv,intent%20as%20a%20basal%20fact.
29) Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Mar. 11, 1993), available at http://www.prop1.org/rainbow/rfra.htm.
30) Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 65 (1995), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/519/482/.
31) Rule of Lenity, Legal Information Institute (May 2022), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rule_of_lenity.
32) Scott Bomboy, The Constitutional Issues Related to Covid-19 Mask Mandates, National Constitutional Center (Aug. 21, 2021), available at https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-constitutional-issues-related-to-covid-19-mask-mandates.
33) Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/374/398/.
34) Sim Israeloff, The Absurdity Doctrine Disfavored by the Courts, Statutory Interpretation (Jun. 8, 2020), available at https://www.reverseandrender.com/2020/06/articles/statutory-interpretation/the-absurdity-doctrine-disfavored-by-the-courts/.
35) Smith v. United States, 508 U. S. 223 (1993), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/223/.
36) Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193, fn. 7 (1979), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/443/193/.
37) Substantial Burden Definition, Law Insider (n.d.),
available at https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/substantial-
burden#:~:text=Substantial%20burden%20means%20a%20requirement%20in%20an%20occupational%20regulation%20that,
that%20is%20more%20than%20incidental.
38) The Committee, United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee (n.d.), available at https://judiciary.house.gov/the-committee#:~:text=The%20Committee%20has%20jurisdiction%20over,the%20House%20Floor%20each%20year.
39) Travis Weber, State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs): What Are They and Why Are They Needed?, Family Research Council (Mar. 2015), available at https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF15C119.pdf.
40) Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/17-965/#tab-opinion-3920355.
41) United States v. McFadden, 13 F.3d 463, 466 (CA1994) (Breyer, C. J., dissenting), available at https://casetext.com/case/us-v-mcfadden-9.
42) United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022), available at https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-taylor-1453.
43) United States v. Wells, 519 U. S. 482 (1997), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/519/482/.
44) 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1951.
45) 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924.
46) 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(I), available at available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924.
47) 42 U.S.C. §2000bb–1(b), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb-1.
48) Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1971), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/205/.