(11-25-2019, 04:39 AM)Bleakfoot Wrote:

(11-24-2019, 04:39 PM)Belschaft Wrote: The problem with relying on intent is that it's pretty common for people to disagree on what the intent was.

It's not necessarily about "relying" on intent, but about having regard to it, particularly where a strict literal interpretation of the legislation would produce an undesirable or counterintuitive outcome.

It is actually pretty common in English law (and probably other common law jurisdictions as well, though I'm less familiar with those) for courts to examine the intention of Parliament in order to resolve the meaning of a disputed clause in legislation. Items such as transcripts of parliamentary debates where the clause was discussed can be admissible as evidence. Fortunately we have an archive of debate threads that could be put to a similar purpose.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media