INTERPRETATION
The art or process of determining the intended meaning of a written document, such as a constitution, statute, contract, deed, or will.
The interpretation of written documents is fundamental to the process and PRACTICE OF
LAW. Interpretation takes place whenever the meaning of a legal document must be determined. Lawyers and judges search for meaning using various interpretive approaches and rules of construction. In constitutional and statutory law, legal interpretation can be a contentious issue.
Legal interpretation may be based on a lit-
eral reading of a document. For example, when
JOHN DOE signs a will that names his wife, Jane
Doe, as his PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, his
intent to name her the administrator of his
estate can be determined solely from the specific
language used in the will. There is no need to
consider the surrounding facts and circum-
stances that went into his choice.
When the intended meaning of the words in
a document is obscure and conjecture is needed
to determine the sense in which they have been
used, mixed interpretation occurs. In such a
case, the words express an individual’s intent
only when they are correctly comprehended. If
John Doe refers only to “my wife” in his will, a
probate court will have to determine who his
wife was at the time of his death. How a lawyer
or judge ascertains intent when words are
unclear is typically governed by rules of con-
struction. For example, the general definition of
a word will govern interpretation, unless
through custom, usage, or legal precedent a spe-
cial meaning has been attached to the term.
When a court interprets a statute, it is
guided by rules of statutory construction.
Judges are to first attempt to find the “plain
meaning” of a law, based solely on the words of
the statute. If the statute itself is not clear, a
court then may look to extrinsic evidence, in
this case LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, to help inter-
pret what the legislature meant when it enacted
the statute. It is now common practice for
statutes to contain “interpretation clauses,”
which include definitions of key words that
occur frequently in the laws. These clauses are
intended to promote the PLAIN MEANING of the
law and to restrict courts from finding their
own meaning.
Concern over whether courts apply strict or
liberal methods of interpretation has generated
the most controversy at the constitutional level.
How the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the
Constitution has been widely debated since the
1960s. Critics of the WARREN COURT, of the
1950s and 1960s, charged that the Court had
usurped the lawmaking function by liberally
interpreting constitutional provisions.
This criticism led to JURISPRUDENCE of
“original intent,” a philosophy that calls on the
Supreme Court and other judges to seek the
plain meaning of the Constitution. If plain tex-
tual meaning is lacking, the justices should
attempt to determine the original intentions of
the Framers. Those who advocate an ORIGINAL
INTENT method of interpretation also empha-
size the need for the justices to respect history,
tradition, and legal precedent.
Opponents of original intent jurisprudence
argue that discerning the intent of the Framers is
impossible on many issues. Even if the original
intent is knowable, some opponents believe that
this intent should not govern contemporary
decision making on constitutional issues. In
their view the Constitution is a living document
that should be interpreted according to the
times. This interpretive philosophy would per-
mit justices to read the Constitution as a
dynamic document, with contemporary values
assisting in the search for meaning.
CROSS-REFERENCES
