“….In addition, it is our duty to construe a statute as constitutional when such a construction is fairly possible.” [See, e.g., United States v. Security Indus. Bank, 459 U.S. 70, 78, 103 S.Ct. 407, 412, 74 L.Ed.2d 235 (1982); International Ass'n of Machinists v. Street, [1961] USSC 128; 367 U.S. 740, 749-50[1961] USSC 128; , 81 S.Ct. 1784, 1790, 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1961)]
3.06.2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Construction that advances the Object of Statute
It is general rule of construction that in case there are two interpretations one which advances the object and purpose of the statute should be selected. Secondly, courts generally try to maintain the constitutional validity of statute. This is a general presumption and rule of construction as well.
“….In addition, it is our duty to construe a statute as constitutional when such a construction is fairly possible.” [See, e.g., United States v. Security Indus. Bank, 459 U.S. 70, 78, 103 S.Ct. 407, 412, 74 L.Ed.2d 235 (1982); International Ass'n of Machinists v. Street, [1961] USSC 128; 367 U.S. 740, 749-50[1961] USSC 128; , 81 S.Ct. 1784, 1790, 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1961)]
“….In addition, it is our duty to construe a statute as constitutional when such a construction is fairly possible.” [See, e.g., United States v. Security Indus. Bank, 459 U.S. 70, 78, 103 S.Ct. 407, 412, 74 L.Ed.2d 235 (1982); International Ass'n of Machinists v. Street, [1961] USSC 128; 367 U.S. 740, 749-50[1961] USSC 128; , 81 S.Ct. 1784, 1790, 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1961)]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment