通常文義與法律解釋

Ordinary Meaning and Statutory Interpretation

"美國聯邦法院的判決書常表明，解釋法律應以法條的通常文義為準。法院對案件爭議問題的討論，也常以解析法條的文義開始。但何謂通常文義？如何決定通常文義？法院並未提供明確一致的標準。 本文討論的案例顯示，法院有時依字典的定義，以常人對系爭條文「最普通的用法」，做為通常文義，並拒絕將法條的意涵，擴及到常人較少使用的邊緣意義。但有些判決則依立法目的等理由，將邊緣意義納入法條的通常文義。法院對通常文義的認定，固然和法律解釋方法相關，但法官的價值選擇，往往是更為重要的因素。"

"Federal courts in the United States often state that they interpret a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its term at the time of its enactment. Courts generally begin their discussions with analysis of the text’s ordinary meaning. The cases discussed in this article show that the concept of “ordinary meaning” varies from case to case. Some decisions rely on dictionaries and regard “the most common usage” of a term as ordinary meaning. Yet other decisions extend the definition to include penumbral meaning in order to carry out the purposes of the statute. The differences in defining ordinary meaning of a term are related to different interpretation methods employed by the courts. To a larger extent, however, the differences are a reflection of different value judgment held by Justices."