Interpreting the law is indeed a complex process. One needs to consider various factors. For example, when resolving disputes arising from differing perspectives on how a particular law should be interpreted, the court needs to consider such factors as the original intent that drove the legislators behind the law as well as the circumstances surrounding the particular situation to which the law is to be applied. The lack of clear guidelines makes the process of making sense of laws even more daunting and confusing. The case the food stays in the kitchen underscores the hardships encountered when interpreting statutes. In this case, there are opinions that are faithful to the original statute and others that violate the statute by extending it beyond its initial scope, relying on flawed precedent and disregarding the original intent.
Opinions Conforming to the Statute
The statute issued by the Supreme Lawmaker read as follows: “I am tired of finding popcorn kernels, pretzel crumbs, and pieces of cereal all over the family room. From now on, no food may be eaten outside the kitchen” (Levin, 2009, p. 337). This statute captures the basic elements of law. In addition to identifying the circumstances that necessitated its enactment, the statute also clearly identifies the behaviors that are prohibited. The rulings in response to the findings by Father C.J., Babysitter Sue, and Grandma Senior J best conform to the statute. This is because all these rulings reflect established standards, rules and principles that govern the interpretation of the law. For example, in his ruling, Father C.J. ruled that by drinking water in the living room, Anne was not in violation of the statute (Levin, 2009). This ruling was based on the fact that the statute only forbade foods and was not explicit in its mention or prohibition of having drinks in the family room. The ruling by Father C.J. relates to the liberal theory of representative government. Essentially, this theory recognizes the freedoms of citizens and underscores the fact that laws and those in government are charged with the mandate of pursuing the interests of the citizens. The relationship between the liberal theory and Father C.J’s ruling lies in the fact that the ruling acknowledged Anne’s freedom as a citizen and recognized the fact that rules should not be unduly or needlessly restrictive. Furthermore, this ruling echoes the principle of remaining faithful to the letter and spirit of the law. This principle notes that when interpreting a law, it is crucial to ensure that the original wording and intent of a law is honored (Eskridge, Frickey & Garrett, 2006). Father C.J. must have focused on the letter of the statute when he determined that it did not bar Anne from bringing a drink into the family room.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The opinion by Babysitter Sue is yet another that is in near full conformity with the statute. Sue charged that Beatrice had breached the statute when she drank orange juice in the living room (Levin, 2009). In agreeing with Sue, the court found that Sue’s opinion was consistent with precedent and honored the original intent of the statute. When she enacted the stature, the Supreme Lawmaker was driven by the need to prevent messes. This intent formed the basis of Sue’s opinion as she believed that the orange juice could create a mess. Her opinion and the court’s ruling are in line with the principle of original intent. This principle underscores the importance of considering the issues, goals and purposes that drove the enactment of a particular law (Eskridge, Frickey & Garrett, 2006).
Grandma Senior J is another individual who issued a ruling that the court invalidated. She found that by eating popcorn in the family room, Charlie violated the statute. In its dissenting opinion, the court determined that the statute did not apply to the case (Levin, 2009). The court reiterated that the purpose of the statute was to prevent messes and since Charlie could not create a mess, the statute could not be invoked in finding him in violation. This opinion sheds light on the republican theory. Basically, this theory denies the autonomy of citizens and underscores the supremacy of the law (Eskridge, Frickey & Garrett, 2006). When it reached its decision, the court was primarily guided by the original intent of the statute. Therefore, the opinion reflected the supremacy of this law. However, it can be argued that the court also went against the republican theory as it recognized the autonomy and freedom of citizens. The ruling indicated that the court understood that Charlie was not strictly bound by the statute and that it could be interpreted in a way that honors Charlie’s freedom.
Opinions in Least Conformity
A total of seven opinions were issued in response to various cases. Some of these opinions have lower levels of conformity to the statute. The opinion is response to the case involving Derek is among these. Essentially, this opinion permitted the very behaviors that the statute had prohibited. Derek stood accused of eating pretzels, potato chips, popcorns and other foods that could create messes (Levin, 2009). In his defense, Derek charged that in previous cases, the court had sanctioned the eating of foods in the family room. Furthermore, he argued that since he promised to clean the mess that he created, his eating was lawful. In addition to sanctioning what had been forbidden, this opinion was also based on precedent that can be argued to be flawed. The rules concerning invoking precedents and examining the original intent underlying a law are some of the issues that are reflected in this opinion. Courts are indeed permitted to examine the rulings issued in previous and similar cases (Eskridge, Frickey & Garrett, 2006). However, the precedents are only intended to serve as guidance and should not replace the law. The social construct of representation is another issue that is tied to the opinion. This issue holds that for representation to work properly, citizens must have full faith in the system. When he cited precedent, Derek must have believed that the legal system works perfectly and that decisions made by one court present implications for the entire system. However, it must be remembered that the opinion that the court issued in Derek’s case was grossly inconsistent with the original statute and even forced the Supreme Lawmaker to revise the statute by specifying that all foods and drinks are not permitted in the family room under any circumstances.
In conclusion, the various opinions in the case highlight the complexities of interpreting statutes. The interpretation process requires caution and proper consideration. It is important for justices to ensure that their opinions honor the original intent of the law. Furthermore, they should consider the purpose that the law was designed to serve. Additionally, it is vital for the justices to account for the rights of citizens to whom the law applies. By incorporating these issues into their rulings, judges will be able to balance the interests of the law with the welfare and the rights of the citizens.
References
Eskridge, W. N., Frickey, P. P., & Garrett, E. (2006). Legislation and statutory interpretation. 2 nd Edition. Foundation Press.
Levin, H. Y. (2009). The food stays in the kitchen: everything I needed to know about statutory interpretation I learned by the time I was nine. Green Bag 2D, 12 (3), 337-344.
