On this morning’s Joy Cardin show on Wisconsin Public Radio, I continued my debate with Professor Esenberg over whether the collective bargaining bill has become law, and on the ongoing litigation over the effectiveness of the bill before Circuit Judge Sumi.  You can find the audio of the program here:

  http://www.wpr.org/webcasting/audioarchives_display.cfm?Code=jca

Rarely have two experienced lawyers read the same statutory language in such a diametrically opposed manner.

The danger, when we embark on the task of interpreting any written work that is not our own, is that we only see what we want to see.  I admit that words are imperfect tools for the conveyance of meaning, and that oftentimes multiple interpretations of a text are possible.  However, I reject the idea that all possible interpretations of a text are equally legitimate.  I may not know with certainty exactly what the author intended, but if I am honest and rigorous I can narrow the universe of plausible meanings.  If I did not believe in the possibility of discerning meaning in an objective manner, then I would not have become a law professor.

The Wisconsin Constitution requires three things before legislation becomes “law:” 1) a bill passed by both houses of the legislature; 2) either the Governor’s signature or a veto override; and 3) publication.  The act of publication is a constitutional requirement, and no action of the legislature can become effective as law without this act.

The Wisconsin Constitution leaves it to the legislature to decide the manner in which publication will occur.  The legislature has passed various statutory provisions which, taken together, reflect the choice that it made.