Hello everyone, my name is Renato Costa, this is Aussie Law and today we'll look at some specific methods of constitutional interpretation and the effects of a decision for the unconstitutionality of a law. If you are subscribed to our channel you already know the High Court of Australia adopts a literal approach to the interpretation of the Constitution. This means that when interpreting a head of power in the Constitution, the High Court has favoured a wide interpretation of the meaning of the words expressed in the Constitutional text. And this leads to a narrow or formal characterisation of the federal laws. One of our very first videos was about the historical method of Constitutional interpretation.
I mentioned there about originalism and intentionalism. One of these acknowledges that the words are understood as having the same meaning as they had when the Constitution was enacted. This is originalism.
Another basically says that the words express the intention of the framers. And this is intentionalism. Now, we can't deny that the words do change their meaning from time to time. And sometimes new meaning is added to the words that already exist.
So maybe one should interpret the prohibitions of the constitution by considering that there is a distinction between the meaning of the words when the constitution was first drafted and the application of those who are same words to a changing society. This issue of the meaning of the words and its application is the problem of interpretation that we refer to when we talk about connotation and denotation. The connotation is the meaning of a word understood as the definition or essence of the concept referred to by the word, whereas the denotation is the class of objects or things which at any particular time are designated by that concept. Connotation is the concept of the thing or the definition of the word itself. Denotation is the development of that definition.
Connotation is the meaning of the term while its denotation concerns the class of objects to which it refers. So, when interpreting the Constitution, should the High Court consider the connotation or the denotation of the words? Or even, what approach has the High Court adopted when interpreting the Commonwealth Constitution? Before I answer that question, I think it's time for you to click the like button, subscribe to our channel, and hit the bell icon so you know every time I upload a new video. And also consider becoming a member of Aussie Law.
This way you have access to our exclusive members area. And it's the only way that I can reply to your comments. So make sure you are subscribed and that you join our Aussie Law community. The High Court of Australia has adopted in many cases a form of originalism that says the connotation of constitutional provisions must remain the same.
while it is possible to change the denotation of the terms used in the Constitution. In a case from 1959, Justice Windy said We must not, in interpreting the Constitution, restrict the denotation of its terms to the things they denoted in the 1900s. The denotation of words becomes enlarged as new things falling within their connotations come into existence or become known.
But But in the interpretation of the Constitution, the connotation or connotations of its words should remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have borne in 1900s. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes. In another case called Street and Queensland Bar Association, A case that we mentioned before in our video about section 117 of the Constitution, Justice Dawson said that the essential meaning of the Constitution must remain the same, although with the passage of time its words must be applied to situations which were not envisaged at Federation.
If you have already clicked the subscribe button and you've been following us, you will remember that we also talked in another video about the Payroll Tax Case. And of course, if you have not yet subscribed, come on now, it's the perfect time to do it. Anyways, in that case, in the Payroll Tax Case, Justice Windeer said that the enunciation by courts of constitutional principles based on the interpretation of a written constitution may vary and develop in response to changing circumstances.
For him, the denotations of the words expressed in the constitution are not fixed. We must remember, he said, that the Constitution was intended to endure and to be applied in changing circumstances. So, although it seems clear the position of the High Court in terms of acknowledging the denotation and changing nature of the words expressed in the Constitution, the approach has been criticized for its lack of specificity.
What fits the denotation of a particular term in this specific circumstance? Can a head of power be interpreted more broadly or narrowly according to external factors? I will invite you to watch the video about the different heads of power in the Constitution to answer that question. You can do that by just clicking on the video on the side here and I'll see you then.
Tchau!