Critics have raised concerns that Pepper v. Hart’s relaxation of the exclusionary rule relating to Parliamentary debates in Hansard has created separation of powers issues by attributing statutory meaning to ministerial statements. This article argues that, in some cases, the absence of references to Hansard also has the potential to lead to separation of powers concerns, especially where citing Hansard could blunt criticism that the Supreme Court has exceeded its proper role in statutory interpretation.

中文翻译：

---

宪法对位：立法辩论、法定解释和分权

批评人士表示担心，佩珀诉哈特案在《议事录》中放宽了与议会辩论有关的排除规则，将法定含义赋予部长声明，从而造成了权力分离问题。本文认为，在某些情况下，没有提及《议事录》也有可能导致权力分离问题，特别是在引用《议事录》可能会直言不讳地批评最高法院超出其在法定解释中的适当作用的情况下。