The author of the passage suggests that in English law a substantive interpretation of a legal rule might be warrante...

MichelleRod July 27, 2018

Thanks for your question @danieldepasquale

In the final paragraph, the author touches on the shortcomings of each country's system. He says of the English system that it "has led to wooden interpretations of statutes and an unwillingness to develop the common law though judicial activism."

Maroun April 15, 2019

Can you elaborate? That answer doesn't really help at all.

Ravi April 16, 2019

@Maroun,

Happy to help. This question is essentially asking us to figure out
when a substantive interpretation of a legal rule could be warranted
in England. In looking back to the passage's commentary on the formal
reasoning that serves as the foundation of the English legal system,
we find that there is the possibility for a potential exception to
formal reasoning's prohibition on substantive interpretation. In the
passage, the author says that as soon as a legal rule "has been
clearly established" and "the legality of the rule is not in
question," judges will not even consider substantive arguments (lines
40-46).

However, if the legal rule hasn't been very clearly established or the
legality of the rule is in question, this could open the door for the
judge to make substantive interpretations of the law. In looking for
one or both of these circumstances in our answer choices, (C) gives us
both said circumstances. If the legality of the rule is in question
and the rule hasn't been established because of the fact that its
enforcement is open to judicial interpretation, then perhaps even an
English judge would actually make substantive interpretations of the
law. Thus, (C) is the correct answer choice for this question.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!