One should consult the text of the statute, only when the legislative history is ambiguous
In the past few decades, however, we have developed a legal culture in which lawyers routinely – and I do mean routinely – make no distinction between words in the text of a statute and words in its legislative history. My court is frequently told, in briefs and in oral argument, that "Congress said thus-and-so" – when in fact what is being quoted is not the law promulgated by Congress, nor even any text endorsed by a single house of Congress, but rather the statement of a single committee of a single house, set forth in committee report. Resort to legislative history has become so common that lawyerly wags have popularized a humorous quip inverting the oft-recited (and oft-ignored) rule as to when its use it appropriate: "One should consult the text of the statute," the joke goes, "only when the legislative history is ambiguous." Alas, that is no longer funny. Reality has overtaken parody. A few terms ago, I read a brief that began the legal argument with a discussion of legislative history and then continued (I am quoting it verbatim): "Unfortunately, the legislative debates are not helpful. Thus, we turn to the other guidepost in this difficult area, statutory language." – (Scalia, 1998)
Source:
Scalia, A. (1998). A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. (A. Gutmann, Ed.) Princeton University Press.
