In the news you often read about differing philosophies of judicial interpretation, especially when important cases are decided (like several recent US Supreme Court decisions). I recently browsed through a book by Antonin Scalia in which he outlines a number of specific principles he endorses and does not endorse, with citations to earlier case law. Apparently there is some debate about the merits of such principles and how (or whether) judicial interpretation of legislation comports with legislators' understanding of what they are doing.
It is clear that many of these "canons" can be overridden on a per-law basis by including language in the law that explicitly goes against some judicial principle that would otherwise apply. However, my question is, are the principles themselves subject to legislative control in a broader sense? Can legislatures pass "meta-laws" which define how other laws are to be intepreted? For instance, could the US Congress pass a law saying "Wherever ambiguity arises in statutory interpretation, the statute in question shall be understood as to favor the least powerful party in a dispute"? Or "No special deference shall be given to interpretation of statute by administrative agencies" (i.e., to curtail Chevron deference)? Or more generally, can a legislature pass a law saying "The law shall be understood as X", where X is some principle of intepretation that is not specific to the law in which it is contained, but is meant to constrain interpretations of all other laws (or some subset of other laws)? Would such laws be valid?
I'm interested mostly in the situation in the US, but would be interested to know how the issue could play out in different countires, or in particular US states.