The US obsession with literality in recent times is very sui generis (and even then you have a lot of people criticizing it for not taking further, e.g. the fis

The US obsession with literality in recent times is very sui generis (and even then you have a lot of people criticizing it for not taking further, e.g. the fish is a tangible asset SCOTUS case). In Portugal, the law specifies how it should be interpreted (1966 civil code, art. 9) 1. Interpretation should not be limited to the letter of the law but should reconstruct the legislative intent from the texts, taking into account the unity of the legal system, the circumstances in which the law was drafted, and the specific conditions of the time when it is applied. 2. However, the interpreter cannot consider a legislative intent that does not have at least a minimal verbal correspondence in the letter of the law, even if it is imperfectly expressed. 3. In determining the meaning and scope of the law, the interpreter will presume that the legislator has adopted the most appropriate solutions and has expressed their intent in suitable terms. It doesn't help make the meaning of the text more determinate, but it may shift where the battle is fought.