Legislative Intention Vindicated?

Goldsworthy, Jeffrey

doi:10.1093/ojls/gqt016

Cited by 14 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Goldsworthy (2013, 823) states that “Ekins rejects […] notions […] of legislative intent […] which depict it as an aggregation of […] individual intentions […]. Instead, he defends a ‘unitary model’ according to which the relevant intention is that of the legislature itself.”…”

Section: Corporate Attitudes and Two Readings Of Ekinsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A further aspect of identifying policy plans is Ekins’s reliance on Finnis’s central case method (Dolcetti 2019; Ekins 2019, 140; Goldsworthy 2013, 822). According to the central case method, descriptions of social reality cannot be value‐free (Finnis 2011, 3).…”

Section: Corporate Attitudes and Two Readings Of Ekinsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is of little solace that ideal legislatures exists when a judge is dealing with real life. As Goldsworthy rightly comments, there is a risk that Ekins’s use of reasonable legislators leads to legislative intent as a fiction (Goldsworthy 2013, 831).…”

Section: A Positive Argument: Explanation and Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Uncommon Legislative Attitudes: Why a Theory of Legislative Intent Needs Nontrivial Aggregation

Tan

2021

Ratio Juris

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the publication of Ekins’s The Nature of Legislative Intent, significant attention has been paid to common attitude models of legislative intention, that is, models that require unanimity among its group members. A common interpretation of Ekins is that these common attitudes are to be preferred over aggregated attitudes. I argue that any feasible theory of legislative attitudes will require nontrivial aggregation (i.e., not based on unanimity rules alone). Two arguments are put forward in this regard: first, that nontrivial aggregation better explains uncooperative legislative behaviour and, second, that mathematical problems with aggregation apply to common attitudes as well, since they involve trivial aggregation. These arguments generalise to theories of common attitudes other than Ekins’s.

show abstract

Section: Corporate Attitudes and Two Readings Of Ekinsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Corporate Attitudes and Two Readings Of Ekinsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Uncommon Legislative Attitudes: Why a Theory of Legislative Intent Needs Nontrivial Aggregation

Tan

2021

Ratio Juris

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, I do not intend to explore whether he succeeds in steering clear of aggregative notions of legislative intent or he merely postpones the reckoning with them. Instead, I want to criticise the connection he draws between his vision of legislatures and the content of the law. I shall argue that Ekins assumes a controversial picture of the way facts about the doings and sayings of legislators as a collective body impact on our legal rights and duties.…”

Section: The Authority Of Legislation and The Content Of The Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%