The Use of Intentionalism, Textualism, Purposivism, Lenity, and the Absurd Doctrine When Evaluating Legislative Intent and Legislative History

Abstract

This essay aims to illustrate how to use effectively the theories of intentionalism, textualism, purposivism, the principle of lenity and the absurd doctrine when a statue or a case is the focus of the analysis. Legislative intent and legislative history of a statute or a case are paramount in this effort. The benefit of using these tools in evaluating federal and state laws. Many legal scholars, practitioners, and students will likely find these techniques valuable. The legal analytical technique of issue, rule, analysis, and conclusion (IRAC) is of fundamental importance when conducting a legal analysis. However, theories of intentionalism, textualism, purposivism, the duty of lenity, and the absurd doctrine are used in the analysis section of an IRAC argument. They increase the competence in the legal profession when fashioning arguments. The more tools that are in a legal scholar’s, practitioner’s, or student’s tool bag, the stronger their arguments, provided that the instruments are used correctly. The intent of this essay is to help those in the legal profession as well as law students use the right tools at the right time. It should be remembered when the only tool that one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Thus, adding tools to an individual’s legal tool bag is the goal of this essay.