Isn't the writer of a law the ultimate authority and final say in its interpretation?

[Quixote1818]

Meaning, since the writer of the stand your ground law said his law doesn't apply in the Trayvon Martin case, then I would think his opinion should be final. We often look to letters and the words of the Founding Fathers to interpret what they intended in the laws they wrote but in this case we have the author of the law saying clearly it does NOT have any bearing on this case other than perhaps Trayvon had the right to stand his ground by someone who was stalking him.

If I was a lawyer for the Martin family I point that out a thousand times during the case.

[Deep13]

1. not really

Even if only one person wrote it, it was still enacted by the legislature generally and the different law makers may have had different interpretations on what it means. Further, what he's saying now may simply be a reaction to what happened. So, while the author's opinion may be persuasive, it is not the final authority.

[Quixote1818]

4. Good points. I bet he will be called as a witness

by one side or the other and I think if he did side with it not applying in this case it would most certainly impact the jury's decision. If he changes his mind it could mean trouble.

[Deep13]

5. Well, witnesses are for facts, not law.

The lawyers will submit briefs on the law to the court and the state may quote the writer. The judge will then determine what the law is and tell the jury how to apply it. The jury will hear from witnesses to the event and other relevant facts and will, if they do as instructed, apply the judge's legal instructions to those facts.

[Renaissance Man]

2. The direct answer to your question ...

... is no.

The ultimate authority and final say in interpretation of law (in this case, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law -- criminal statutory self-defense and immunity from criminal prosecution) is the Florida Supreme Court. The author of the law can only offer testimony with regard to legislative intent and the transcript of debate on the law from the state's legislature can serve to offer some directive as to legislative intent.

... but the final say on interpretation of a state's law rests with that state's supreme court.

I say this because even if argued at the trial court level, Florida state appellate courts can review the decision of a lower court trial judge to determine whether he or she erred in a ruling on legislative intent. The state supreme court can, of course, review the decision of a lower appellate court.

[Quixote1818]

11. Makes sense, but clearly the state supreme court could refer to any quotes by the author

to help them decide like the supreme court has done when interpreting the Establishment clause as a separation of church and state because it was in a letter by Thomas Jefferson and notes written by James Madison?

I understand that the author of the law would not be the final say but perhaps the state supreme court might look to his notes to try and get a better grasp of the law, perhaps even quoting the author to back up their position and since the author and the Gov. at the time seem to suggest it doesn't apply here (and they know the law better than you and I) wouldn't that mean there is at least a good chance that it doesn't apply in this instance?

[onenote]

13. The lawyers might refer the court to statements by the author

but statements made after the enactment of a piece of legislation as opposed to statements made during the debate and consideration of legislation are given little weight. If the author described it in a particular manner during the debate it sometimes will be given weight since those voting for or against it had that information at the time they voted. But statements made after the legislation was enacted, standing alone, aren't really considered particularly relevant.

[The Magistrate]

3. Not Really, Sir

It is quite possible for someone to intend a string of words to have a meaning different from the one which that string of words actually conveys to many other people. It is part of a writer's skill to ensure the meaning people take from something he or she writes is the one he or she intends. The authors of this law clearly funked that portion of the business....

[spin]

12. I agree. The wording of the law allows an excuse for the authorities ...

to avoid arresting and prosecuting individuals who claim self defense under the "Stand Your Ground" law when there are valid questions about his actions.

In my opinion the basic concept of the law is sound. There should be no reason to require an individual to retreat when he is under attack or just about to be attacked by another person who intends to inflict serious harm and has the ability to do so.

That is no way should be interpreted as allowing a person to confront another individual, refuse to break off the encounter when he realizes that violence might occur and then claim self defense.

I suspect that the law will not be repealed but the wording will be changed to eliminate any possible confusion or misinterpretation in the Florida legislature. The obvious intent of the law was not to allow any fool to get into an argument and then shoot the other person because he felt threatened (as suggested by the media). The threat should be one that a reasonable man would believe would cause serious injury or death if carried out. For example, the other person pulled a knife or a gun or attempted to physically attack or there was a significant difference in size, weight or physical ability.

I also believe that an investigation of any self defense incident should be reviewed by the State Attorney's office to prevent any suspicion of favoritism or racial bias by the local authorities.

[Jim__]

6. No. In Colorado we have an anti-tax activist named Douglas Bruce.

The most charitable thing we can say about Douglas Bruce is that he's a fucking idiot. An anti-tax law that was largely written by him was passed in Colorado - some years ago. Whenever there was a dispute about the law, he claimed the right to decide the dispute since he had written the law. He may have written it, but it was not him who passed it; and the interpretation of the law has to be based on a reasonable reading of the text.

[lastlib]

7. No--

"It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." --CJ John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803 (1 Cranch 137)

[cthulu2016]

8. No, not at all!

It is central to our concept of law that a statute is the primary evidence of its own meaning.

There are innumerable cases where courts say, "The legislature was probably trying to say X, but that's not what the law says and the plain language of law trumps its intent."

Consider the alternative. The courts would be in the position of mind-readers. Everyone who voted for a law had an interpretation/ intent, and all of equal weight to that of the author. So it woud be the average of what undred of people thought they were voting for.

Legislators probably don't all agree what a law means the day it's passed, and their emeories get hazier ad hazier... think what Mitt Romney's current interpretation of Romneycare would be.

So we are guided by the standard judicial rules of legislative interpretation, which begin with that a plain reading of a statute trumps anything else.

Where judicial intent does come up sometimes is in unconstituional laws... if the legislative intent was to deprive rights, for instance. A lot of "moment of silent reflection" laws have been struck down in cases that noted that the proponants talked about the eed for prayer in schools.

But in that case the legislative intent is not being used to determine the meaning of the statute itself.

For meaning the plain language is all of it. If congress accidentally defunded the entire military a court would suggest that congress might want to correct their (presumed) error, but until they did no court would order that money be transferred to the military.

To do so would be to act as a legslature.

A lot of judges have had serious problems with three-time loser laws, saying that the legislature could not have reasonably intended to force them to sentence someone to life for stealing a candy bar three times... but they give the sentence because they have no power to guess at what the legislature meant.

[Swede Atlanta]

9. Actually no.......

A law may originate with an individual but it requires the statutory procedures and votes by the legislative and executive branches to enact an idea.

Enforcement is the responsibility of the executive, i.e. the governor in a state and by proxy, local officials.

The ultimate "decider" as to the application and constitutionality of a law is the jurisdiction's highest court, in this case the Florida Supreme Court. Federal courts are involved when the issue involves a matter of federal law or Constitutional scrutiny.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. No, that belongs to the courts