Skip to main content

Protecting Your Rights: Interpreting Law by Its Plain Meaning


When deciding whether people have broken laws, should judges consider the intent of the legislators who wrote the law? Or simply consider the plain language of the law as written? Legal scholars have debated this question for decades. However, there is only one answer that protects We The People.

The Declaration of Independence states, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This means, among other things, that only laws actually voted on by the people (or their validly elected representatives) can be legitimately enforced. Any purpose not written into the law was not voted on, and so should not be imposed.


What does this have to do with interpreting laws? In the republican form of government, the citizens speak through their elected representatives. These representatives pass laws collectively, almost always through two legislative bodies (House and Senate) and an executive (President or Governor) signs off. Even in relatively small states, that’s a considerable number of people who have to agree for an idea to become a law. Odds are that there are several purposes at work to enact a single law.


Judges making guesses as to this unwritten legislative intent when penalizing a citizen is unfair, inconsistent, and unconstitutional. A judge might think he knows why legislators enacted a law, but legislators cast their votes for all kinds of reasons. We hope they do so for the public good. But some do so for selfish reasons. Some vote for a policy they dislike to curry favor for something they deem more important. Expanding a law beyond the plain text violates these first principles of representative government by consent of the governed. It also fails to put the public on notice as to what conduct is prohibited. What the judge believes to have been the legislative intent is not law. And judges are not appointed to make policy.


Imagine a law passed by a 5-member city council, prohibiting “vehicles in the park.” It passes by a vote of five to zero. But what qualifies as a vehicle? Does a bike? A dirt bike? A wheelchair? Does it apply only to street-legal vehicles? The first councilman lives near the park, and doesn’t like the noise of motorized vehicles near his house. He would allow bikes and wheelchairs but not dirt bikes. The second is an extreme environmentalist, and fears that anything with wheels will damage the fragile ecology of the park. He would not allow any of the potential “vehicles,” including bikes and wheelchairs. The third has a child with a physical handicap who needs a wheelchair, enjoys the park, but is frightened by bikes speeding past. He would allow wheelchairs but not bikes or dirt bikes. The fourth rides a dirt bike, and wants to keep cars and larger vehicles out of the park to ensure the path is clear for him to ride. He would allow all three. The fifth is indifferent, but votes for the ordinance to be agreeable. It is unclear what he would allow.


That’s two “for,” two “against,” and one “undecided” on bicycles; three “for,” one “against,” and one “undecided” on wheelchairs, and one “for,” three “against,” and one “undecided” on dirt bikes. If the judge and the public could read the minds of the legislators, it would be clear that dirt bikes are prohibited, wheelchairs are allowed, and it is unclear regarding bicycles. But the judge and the public can’t read minds. They can read the text of the law.

More importantly, the five members of the council didn’t agree on any one purpose. They didn’t reach a majority consensus. They only agreed that “vehicles” were prohibited.  So, no intention has been enacted by the consent of the people. Only the text of the law has been voted on, so only the text of the law is legitimately enacted.


So where does that leave principled textualists, who eschew constructing legislative intent? As much as possible, judges should give words in laws their commonly understood meaning. Because of this law’s lack of written purpose or definitions, there is still an ambiguity to be resolved: can someone be ticketed for riding their bicycle, dirt bike or wheelchair through the park? One answer is found in traditional definitions, easily accessible to the general public: the dictionary.


Dictionary definitions may sound trite, but they are often useful interpretive tools. Merriam Webster defines vehicle as “a means of carrying or transporting something (planes, trains, and other vehicles) such as a: MOTOR VEHICLE b: a piece of mechanized equipment.”


This textual source provides judges with black and white guidance, fair to the general public, that bikes and wheelchairs are okay (they are not mechanized), whereas motorized dirt bikes are prohibited. If the judge felt a ticket for a bicycle was too close to call, since it has some mechanized parts, he could also invoke the “rule of lenity”: where an ambiguous law is interpreted in favor of the accused. Here, that would likely allow bikes in the park. The City Council could always revise the law to prohibit them. This seems to be a just result, even though it doesn’t fully capture each member of the council’s intended prohibitions. 

The road to hell is paved with guesses at legislative intent. The road to a well-functioning republic, based on the consent of the governed, is paved with reliance on the actual text of the law.


Mike Davis is Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.


Popular posts from this blog

Friday Special: The Left’s New Fear of Speech

As we said there in rejecting Virginia's claim that the only way it could enable its citizens to find their self-interest was to deny them information that is neither false nor misleading: "There is… an alternative to this highly paternalistic approach. That alternative is to assume that this information is not in itself harmful, that people will perceive their own best interests if only they are well enough informed, and that the best means to that end is to open the channels of communication rather than to close them. - Thurgood Marshall, Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township Of Willingboro , 431 U.S. 85 (1977) With 2020 being such a caustic year, many novel innovations will be forgotten. Does anyone remember that the global shutdown was supposed to last three weeks to “flatten the curve?” The phrase probably rings a bell now that you hear it, but I bet you haven’t thought of it lately. We took for granted that something had to be done. We blithely accepted that lockdowns wer

OG&E and the Corporation Commission Aren’t Doing Their Jobs

At the time of this writing, it’s been a full week since there was power at my home. I live within OG&E’s electrical grid, so when it comes to being without power this past week, I’m nothing special. Many of OG&E’s customers had no power for days, and some will have no power for well over a week. By the time power is restored to everyone in their service area, OG&E’s own estimate is that it will have taken ten full days to repair all the damage from Oklahoma’s latest ice storm. Ice storms are bears, no doubt about it. They are very hard on trees, and if the roads ice over, they are very hard on cars. But roads, for the most part, were not an issue during Oklahoma’s “Icemageddon” of 2020. The problem was the extra weight of the ice on trees, wires and poles. And what we discovered was that Oklahoma’s electric power grid, once again, was not up to the challenge. Fact is, Oklahoma’s power grid isn’t up to much of Oklahoma’s weather. Every time the electricity goes out, which

Official Statement of 1889 Institute: Open Oklahoma’s Schools

Byron Schlomach, director of the 1889 Institute, issued the following statement today regarding the ongoing school closures throughout Oklahoma as a result of the Oklahoma State Board of Education’s response to the COVID-19 virus: Way back in March, the 1889 Institute first protested school closings based on then-existing evidence that school-age children are not prone to the disease, evidence confirmed in intervening months. This evidence, combined with the failure of school districts to provide a rigorous online education and the hardship on two-earner families created by distance learning, makes it clear that closing the schools has, indeed, been a policy error of epic proportions. To that end, 1889 Institute is calling on the Board of Education to rescind its current guidance that recommends such closures and reopen traditional brick and mortar schools immediately following the upcoming Christmas break. Not doing so is a disservice to both students and parents and will have a last

Think Carefully before Voting on SQ 802

So we vote next week on whether or not to expand Medicaid according to Obamacare’s provisions. A vote “Yes” on State Question 802 would expand Medicaid to able-bodied adults above the poverty line. A vote “No” would keep the status quo, with taxpayers buying health care under Medicaid mainly for poor children and pregnant mothers. But as with just about anything proposed by initiative, State Question 802 is not really that simple. For one thing, it forever entrenches a federal program, which can be changed by Congress at any time, in our state’s constitution, which is not so easily amended. Obviously, the proponents of SQ 802 want to set the terms of the Medicaid expansion permanently, sidestepping our constitutionally instituted legislature, which is supposed to react and adjust to existing circumstances. SQ 802 would take that flexibility away. A consequence of that reduced flexibility will likely be sacrifices in other state-financed programs such as public education, both in the n