미국에서의 법원의 행정법 해석

The conventional theories of statutory interpretation are organized by legislature intent, objective meaning and notion that preexisting law influences the legal meaning and legal consequences of legislative action. Over the last twenty years or so, more and more federal judges have adopted an objective approach to interpretive questions. But ① sometimes the intended meaning of relevant text is too unclear to provide solid ground for case-specific interpretation, ② sometimes the objective meaning of the text is intractably ambiguous, ③ sometimes the underlying legislative policies and purposes are too diffuse or contradictory to support persuasive, case-specific inferences, ④ sometimes the ambient law and the traditional rules of interpretation have nothing definitive to say about the precise issue the court must decide. When the courts, in their discretion, resolve uncertainty concerning the meaning of statutory texts, they are in some respects in a better position than the legislature itself to make judgments about what the law ought to be. Courts have institutional strengths that can and should be brought to bear to improve statutory law. Five of these judicial virtues are ① hindsight, ② particularity, ③ detachment, ④ rational explanation and ⑤ consistency and justice. In most cases it is realistic to suppose that statutes have a fairly precise, judicially determinable meaning and that the courts are in a position to discover and declare that meaning through a process of legal reasoning.