A logical analysis of argumentation in statutory interpretation

A logical model for arguments dealing with statutory interpretation will be here provided. The basic assumption is that interpretive arguments can be viewed as defeasible inferences: they support their conclusion, but this support is merely presumptive, since it may be challenged by counterarguments.

First a general pattern is introduced for representing arguments dealing with statutory interpretation. It is shown how interpretive arguments may be defeated by counterarguments, and how arguments and counterarguments may participate in larger argumentative interactions, where defeated arguments are reinstated when their defeaters are in turn defeated.

The idea is then developed of an interpretive argumentation basis, i.e., of a given set of interpretive canons and premises that can be used to build, or attack, interpretive arguments. The corresponding interpretive argumentation framework is considered, which includes the set of all interpretive arguments that can be constructed using the resources in the interpretive basis. Finally, a determination is made as to what claims are possibly (defensibly) or necessarily (justifiably) supported by a given interpretive framework.