Show description

4 But how judges were to resolve ambiguities was not something that preoccupied the founders, who were concerned with broad principles of governing and left to Congress whether there would even be federal courts other than the Supreme Court. 5 Judges—members of the Supreme Court, other federal judges if Congress authorized them, and state judges—could fill the interpretive void through the exercise of sound judgment. 6 It was inevitable, therefore, that as ambiguous statutes were crafted, the question of how to interpret them would become important.

Typically, a committee staffer will contact the office for assistance in framing the bill so that it is technically correct. 71 Not all bills originate from the committees themselves. Some originate with the executive branch; others from interest groups, lobbyists, businesses, and state and local governments. These various interests may assist in drafting bills as well, but not necessarily with the care that each chamber’s office of legislative counsel provides. 72 In the Senate, flexible procedures allow senators to draft bills in the course of debate.

This discussion has taken place in a vacuum, largely removed from the reality of how Congress actually functions. An understanding of how Congress operates and how agencies and their respective committees interact reinforces the view that courts, when interpreting statutes, should respect legislators’ sense of their own work product. 15 28 Chapter 4 Judicial Interpretation of Statutes Given my arguments that courts should respect Congress’s work product, it will not surprise you that I find authoritative legislative history useful when I interpret statutes.