Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=815099
 


 



Legislative Intent and Legislative Supremacy: A Reply to Professor Allan


Paul P. Craig


University of Oxford - Faculty of Law

2004

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 585-596, 2004

Abstract:     
Ten years on and the debate about the foundations of judicial review continues. Two themes have remained constant throughout. The species of legislative intent have multiplied to include specific, general and constructive intent, and who knows what further 'adjectival variants' remain to be discovered. Those opposed to the common law model advance dire warnings of the dangers of ignoring their preferred adjectival version. In Allan's case my previous analytical criticism of constructive legislative intent, henceforth CLI, has provoked more extreme claims and more intemperate language about the alleged consequences of adherence to the common law model. These are, as will be seen, wrong. They serve moreover to mask the problems with CLI. Allan claims repeatedly that I confuse literal and constructive legal intent in his reasoning. This is quite mistaken: I take issue with the very meaning and application of CLI.

Accepted Paper Series


Not Available For Download

Date posted: February 29, 2008  

Suggested Citation

Craig, Paul P., Legislative Intent and Legislative Supremacy: A Reply to Professor Allan ( 2004). Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 585-596, 2004. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=815099

Contact Information

Paul P. Craig (Contact Author)
University of Oxford - Faculty of Law ( email )
St. Cross Building
St. Cross Road
Oxford, OX1 3UJ
United Kingdom
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 731

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.203 seconds