textualism

简明释义

英[ˈtekstjʊəˌlɪzəm]美[ˈtetʃʊəˌlɪzəm]

n. 墨守原文；拘泥于圣经原文；校勘学

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.I give a special attention to the study of the text theories of the 20th Century Textualism.

尤其着力研究了“20世纪文本主义”的文本理论。

2.Tradition is an important concept in Gadamer's textualism.

“传统”是伽达默尔诠释学中一个重要的概念。

3.I give a special attention to the study of the text theories of the 20th Century Textualism.

尤其着力研究了“20世纪文本主义”的文本理论。

4.The Supreme Court justices often debate the merits of textualism versus other interpretive approaches.

最高法院的法官们经常辩论文本主义与其他解释方法的优缺点。

5.In law school, we learned about textualism as a method of interpreting statutes.

在法学院，我们学习了如何将法律条款解释为一种方法，即文本主义。

6.Critics argue that textualism can lead to overly rigid interpretations of laws.

批评者认为，文本主义可能导致对法律过于僵化的解释。

7.The judge's decision was heavily influenced by his commitment to textualism.

法官的判决受到他对文本主义的承诺的强烈影响。

8.Understanding textualism is crucial for anyone studying constitutional law.

理解文本主义对于任何研究宪法法的人来说都是至关重要的。

作文

In the realm of legal interpretation, the concept of textualism has gained significant traction over the past few decades. Textualism is an approach that emphasizes the importance of the text of a law or a legal document, asserting that the meaning of the law should be derived from the words themselves rather than from external factors such as legislative intent or social consequences. This method of interpretation is particularly relevant in a time when laws are often scrutinized for their implications on society. One of the main proponents of textualism is Justice Antonin Scalia, who served on the U.S. Supreme Court. He argued that the role of a judge is not to impose personal beliefs or values but to interpret the law based on its written words. According to Scalia, textualism provides a clear and predictable framework for legal interpretation, which is essential for maintaining the rule of law. By focusing solely on the text, judges can avoid the pitfalls of subjectivity and bias that may arise when considering the broader context of a law.Critics of textualism argue that this approach can lead to rigid interpretations that fail to account for the complexities and nuances of real-world situations. They contend that laws are often drafted with specific intentions that cannot be fully understood by merely examining the text. For instance, a statute may contain ambiguous language that requires interpretation beyond its literal meaning. In such cases, relying solely on textualism could result in outcomes that are unjust or contrary to the original purpose of the law.Moreover, the application of textualism can sometimes ignore the evolving nature of language and societal values. Words may change in meaning over time, and what was once considered acceptable may no longer hold true. Therefore, some legal scholars advocate for a more dynamic approach to interpretation that considers the historical context and societal implications of a law, rather than strictly adhering to its textual meaning.Despite these criticisms, textualism remains a powerful tool in the legal arsenal. It promotes accountability and consistency in judicial decisions, ensuring that individuals can understand the laws that govern them. When judges adhere to textualism, they reinforce the principle that laws should be applied uniformly, without favoritism or prejudice. This is particularly important in a democratic society where the rule of law is foundational to justice and liberty.In conclusion, textualism serves as a critical approach to legal interpretation that prioritizes the text of the law. While it has its limitations, its emphasis on clarity and predictability makes it a valuable method for judges and legal practitioners. As society continues to evolve, the debate surrounding textualism will likely persist, challenging us to consider how best to interpret laws in a way that upholds justice while remaining true to the written word. The ongoing discourse around textualism reflects the dynamic interplay between law, language, and society, reminding us of the importance of thoughtful legal interpretation in our ever-changing world.

在法律解释领域，文本主义的概念在过去几十年中获得了显著的关注。文本主义是一种强调法律或法律文件文本重要性的解释方法，主张法律的含义应从文字本身推导，而不是从立法意图或社会后果等外部因素中得出。这种解释方法在法律常常因其对社会的影响而受到审查的时代尤为相关。文本主义的主要支持者之一是安东宁·斯卡利亚法官，他曾在美国最高法院任职。他认为，法官的角色不是施加个人信仰或价值观，而是根据书面文字解释法律。斯卡利亚认为，文本主义提供了一个清晰且可预测的法律解释框架，这对于维护法治至关重要。通过仅关注文本，法官可以避免在考虑法律的更广泛背景时可能出现的主观性和偏见。文本主义的批评者则认为，这种方法可能导致僵化的解释，无法考虑现实情况的复杂性和细微差别。他们主张，法律通常是以特定意图起草的，仅通过检查文本无法完全理解。例如，一项法规可能包含模糊的语言，需要超越字面意义的解释。在这种情况下，仅依靠文本主义可能导致不公正或与法律原始目的相悖的结果。此外，文本主义的应用有时可能忽视语言和社会价值的不断演变。随着时间的推移，词语的含义可能会发生变化，曾经被认为是可以接受的东西可能不再成立。因此，一些法律学者提倡一种更具动态性的解释方法，考虑法律的历史背景和社会影响，而不仅仅是严格遵循其文本含义。尽管存在这些批评，文本主义仍然是法律工具箱中的强大工具。它促进了司法决策的问责制和一致性，确保个人能够理解治理他们的法律。当法官遵循文本主义时，他们强化了法律应均匀适用的原则，而不偏袒或歧视。这在民主社会中尤为重要，因为法治是正义和自由的基础。总之，文本主义作为一种关键的法律解释方法，优先考虑法律的文本。虽然它有其局限性，但其对清晰性和可预测性的强调使其成为法官和法律从业者的一种宝贵方法。随着社会的不断发展，围绕文本主义的辩论可能会持续，挑战我们考虑如何最好地解释法律，以维护正义，同时忠于书面文字。围绕文本主义的持续讨论反映了法律、语言和社会之间动态的相互作用，提醒我们在不断变化的世界中深思熟虑的法律解释的重要性。