Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is based exclusively on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.
_q.jpg)
>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<
👉 Textualism in the context of Traditionalist theology (Islam)
Atharism (Arabic: الأثرية, romanized: al-ʾAthariyya / al-aṯariyyah [æl ʔæθæˈrɪj.jæ], "of athar") is a school of theology in Sunni Islam which developed from circles of the Ahl al-Hadith, a group that rejected rationalistic theology in favor of strict textualism in interpreting the Quran and the hadith.
Adherents of Athari theology believe the zahir (apparent) meaning of the Quran and the hadith are the sole authorities in matters of aqida and Islamic jurisprudence; and that the use of rational disputation is forbidden, even if in verifying the truth. Atharis oppose the use of metaphorical interpretation regarding the anthropomorphic descriptions and attributes of God (ta'wil) and do not attempt to conceptualize the meanings of the Quran by using philosophical principles since they believe that their realities should be consigned to God and Muhammad alone (tafwid). In essence, they assert that the literal meaning of the Quran and the ḥadīth must be accepted without a "how" (i.e. "Bi-la kayfa").
In this Dossier
Textualism in the context of Strict constructionism
In the United States, strict constructionism is a particular legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts the powers of the federal government only to those expressly, i.e., explicitly and clearly, granted to the government by the United States Constitution. While commonly confused with textualism or originalism, they are not the same, and in fact frequently contradict, as textualists like Antonin Scalia have noted.
Textualism in the context of The Unconstitutionality of Slavery
The Unconstitutionality of Slavery is an 1845 abolitionist essay written by the American abolitionist Lysander Spooner. In it, Spooner responds to Garrisonian abolitionists and proslavery theorists who argued that slavery was supported by the United States Constitution. Spooner claims that slavery is unconstitutional and cites natural law, colonial charters, and American founding documents to argue that there is no legal basis for the existence of slavery in the United States and that Congress is obligated to prohibit it.
Spooner was an anarchist who argued that the authority of the courts was derived from fundamental principles of justice and universal human rights. He cites the precedent established in Somerset v Stewart that slavery is incompatible with liberty and cannot exist absent positive legal sanction. Spooner notes that contrary to this principle, the Articles of Confederation, the several state constitutions, and the 1787 federal constitution do not refer to slavery directly; the Declaration of Independence, meanwhile, implicitly proscribes slavery by recognizing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as self-evident natural rights. Spooner rejects appeals to original intent concerning the historical context for constitutional provisions generally understood to address slavery, arguing that laws must be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the text. He concludes that there is no legal basis for slavery in the United States and that the Guarantee Clause requires Congress to enforce emancipation.