Q&A: Legislative Interpretation
Legislative Interpretation
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In lesson number 3 on majority rule, you mentioned that the law should be interpreted according to the will of the public and not according to the intention of the legislator. I wanted to ask: according to that, is it your view that the approach of judicial activism is the correct one? And if so, what do you think is wrong with following the intention of the legislator? After all, in the end he is the one whom the public empowered to determine the wording of the law, so why think that the public does not also want his intention regarding the law?
Best regards,
Answer
I don’t think I said that. It is currently accepted in the legal world that interpretation of the law is not based on the intention of the legislator, but on its meaning in itself.
Beyond that, one must discuss whether the obligation to obey the law is because it expresses the will of the public. It seems to me that it is.
Judicial activism is a general term. It needs more precise definition. No one can avoid that kind of activism entirely, and the disputes are a matter of degree. In principle, a judge is not supposed to expand the law, but to interpret the law itself. What remains is to determine when he is doing that and when he is not.