Resolving Ambiguity: The Continued Relevance of Legislative History in an Era of Textualism (Feb. 11, 2019) by John Cannan “argues that Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s decision in Allina Health Servs. v. Price, 863 F.3d 937 (D.C. Cir. 2017), currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, was the correct one, but only by chance. Kavanagh based his ruling on subjective textualism. Congress’ true intent for the provision at issue, 42 U.S.C. 1395hh(a)(2), can be found in legislative history that has gone largely overlooked. This paper examines this history and shows how legislative history, in general, should, at the very least, continue to be persuasive evidence of statutory meaning.”
- Goodbye World
- House Judiciary Committee’s Articles of Impeachment
- Implied Constitutional Powers in the Founding Era
- Witness written statements in first Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing
- The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report
- Negotiating the American Constitution (1787-1789) Coalitions, Process Rules, and Compromises
- Measuring Law Faculty Scholarly Impact by Citations: Reliable and Valid for Collective Faculty Ranking
- Is There a Case for Statistical Precedent?
- When Courts Should Ignore Statutory Text
- Beck’s The Parts We Skip: A Taxonomy of Constitutional Irrelevancy
Just in case you don't get it: The views expressed are solely those of the blog post author and should not be attributed to anyone else, meaning they do not necessarily represent the views of any organization that the post author is affiliated with or with the views of any other author who publishes on this blog.
- 237,823 hits