Question #1

Front 1

What is the logic behind the analytical model of statutory interpretation?

Back 1

Shift of power from legislature to court: As we move up the funnel of abstraction, the court’s interpretive inquiry becomes more attenuated from legislative intent and more subjective. This gives courts more interpretive discretion and thus more opportunity to make policy autonomously.

Front 2

What is the Order of the Funnel of Abstraction

Back 2

1. Text

2. Specific Intent 

3. Purpose

Front 3

What is the Meaning of "Text" in the Funnel of Abstraction?

Back 3

When the meaning of the text in the statute ix plain, the court applies the plain meaning of the rule without regard to higher levels of abstraction such as legislative history or need to discover the broad purpose of the statute. 

Front 4

What cases utlized the "Plain meaning of rule" ruling?

Back 4

Mann Act Case of Caminetti, we see the majority contend that the terms "other immoral acts" are clear in the ordinary usage of the term and by no means ambiguous. Through their use of the ordinary usage cannon, they interpreted the terms of "other immoral acts" to fit in the realm of a plain meaning of rule interpretation. 

Front 5

When can we depart from the "plain meaning of rule" interpretation?

Back 5

When the statute or terms within the statute are considered to be ambiguous and in need of further guidance to determine if Congress intended for the statute to be interpreted in this way. Canon can be used, such as the one used in the Disssent of Caminetti, "Church of Holy Trinity" which held that an issue may fall within the clear text of a statute but still be outside of the spirit and purpose of the law, and we must interpret the issue in a way to speak to congress's purpose of the statute. 

Front 6

What is the meaning of "specific intent" level of the funnel of abstraction?

Back 6

When a statute or terms within the statute are considered to be ambiguous the court will turn to legislative history in the form of committee deliberations, or floor discussions and whether the issue before the court was discussed and how it is to be handled. 

Front 7

What cases utilized "specific intent"/legislative history?

Back 7

The Dissent in the Caminetti case, and the majority of the Weber case turned to legislative history to determine the court's specific intent when it came to the issue pertaining to the case. 

Front 8

What is the meaning of "congressional purpose" level of the funnel of abstraction?

Back 8

In Congressional purpose, the court interprets the statute when it cannot find any means for the specific intent of congress within the legislative history and the terms are considered to be ambiguous. Then it looks to whether a plain meaning of rule interpretation would result in absurd or inequitable results, or be outside of the broad purpose of the statute. 

Front 9

What cases utilized "purpose"?

Back 9

In Mortensen v. United States, the court turned to the purpose of the statute to determine that the issue of transporting prostitutions had to be in line with the intentions of the statute and a plain meaning of interpretation statute of having prostitutes in a car and returning them from a vacation that had nothing to do with the immoral act of prostitution would be considered to be absurd and inequitable result of a plain meaning of rule reading of the law. 

Front 10

What is the constitutional seperation of powers theoretical justification for this order?

Back 10

Unlike constitutional interpretation and common law adjudication, the Constitution places “the legislative power” in the hands of Congress (Article 1 Land); courts are therefore supposed to be the “faithful agents” of Congress when interpreting statutory law. The lower we are in the funnel of abstraction, the closer we are to an agency relationship.

Front 11

What is the Democratic Theory justification for this order?

Back 11

Same as the countermajoritarian difficulty point: Congress is democratically accountable and has electoral legitimacy while courts do not; therefore Congress should be the primary policy-maker.

Front 12

What is the rule of law justification for this order?

Back 12

Rule of law is a vague but includes ideas of clarity & consistency; one key recurring component is that people should know what the law is before you punish them for violating it, to allow them to conform their conduct to legal requirements. The closer we stay to the bottom of the funnel, the closer we are to the rule of law notion that we’re enforcing the law against people who could have known what it is.