This story is unavailable.

The method of interpretation must be consistent, regardless of the subject matter. Despite the racially charged circumstances in Palmer, the actual ratio is a rather benign comment on legislative interpretation: that one should take a legalist (limiting the meaning to that which the words themselves evince) rather than originalist (the intentions of the writers) approach in interpreting the legislation. I’m not familiar at all with the American legal system so I don’t know what the current interpretive approach is. However, whatever you may think of Trump’s policy, the inconsistency created by holding it to different standards to any other law would set a precedent with much further reaching ramifications than any one law.

Like what you read? Give Grant Pearce a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.