The problem with old laws seems to be that many times the drafters aren't alive to tell what their intent or interpretation is of a given law, but in case a law is new and the drafter or drafters are alive, can courts ask them about the interpretation and intent behind a law?
Under U.S. Jurisprudence, any vagueness in a criminal law must be given an interpretation favorable to the people, rather than the government, since the government had the opportunity to make their intentions clear when drafting the law. Additionally, the U.S. Constitution has what is called the "Vagueness Doctrine" which renders vague laws at any level of government to be unenforceable (Found in the 5th and 14th Amendment as an interpretation of the Due Process clauses).
The quickest way to overturn the court's ruling is for a legislature to pass an amended law that defines the vague terms in terms that are better understood and can give the courts a proper interpretation of what should happen, however, no one who was charged under the law can be recharged under the new definition.
There are three ways that Parliament or a legislature can communicate to a court.
In important cases of statutory interpretation, the Government will often be allowed to intervene to present its views on how the law should be interpreted.
Parliament and legislatures have already provided significant direction to courts about how to interpret statutes via Interpretation Acts.
Parliament and legislatures often will include a preamble or explicit purpose provisions in an Act. These play a significant role in directing a court's understanding of the intent behind a law.
* See this help page: Even if you supply a jurisdiction tag, we expect and encourage answers dealing with other jurisdictions – while it might not answer your question directly, your question will be here for others who may be from those jurisdictions. If you do this, please tag your answer using the tag markdown: [tag: some-tag].
In the US, courts do not ask questions, except that in appellate courts, after an attorney presents his arguments, the justices can ask questions of the attorney. Here is a recording of argumentation before the California Supreme Court (e.g. 4:46). In inquisitorial systems, judges are tasked with interrogating witnesses, but not here.
There is an opportunity for parties to submit briefs that bear on a case, and such brief can be quite wide-ranging. The briefs can inform the justices, but they cannot command them. The problem with your proposal is that there is not even a reasonable chance of identifying an "authority" as to intent. The identity of the drafter of a piece of legislation is in a black box, and there is likely to not be a single person who wrote the legislation. There is probably a list of members of the legislature who introduced the legislation, but they have staff who write bills, and it would be impossible to definitively trace who exactly wrote a particular phrase.
Besides which, the courts are not charged with enforcing the intentions of the staff person who drafted a clause, they are charged with enforcing the law that was enacted by the legislature, regardless of who wrote it. The concept of "collective intent" is kinda sketchy, but it does exist in certain schools of jurisprudence, as a way of determining the meaning of the text that was actually enacted. Therefore (thanks to the aforementioned briefs) one side can present evidence from legislative committee reports that might inform the court of bits of reasoning that was actually used in the creation of the bill. No individual is in the privileged psition of being able to say "this is what the group was thinking, in using that phrase".
A bill that is passed, is passed as presented for vote, not as intended. In most circumstances, the original intent of the bill is not the bill that was passed.
Even if the original intent could be known, the point of all the discussion is to modify the text of the bill. Often there is significant modification of the text in order to make it more acceptable for the legislature and executive to pass. Going back to some previous meaning would be, in essence, a bait-and-switch scam.
Consider: some time after a bill becomes law, we ask the original drafter what they intended. They could give any answer. We'd want some way for them to write down their intent upon drafting. We have that: it is the bill that was drafted.
However, as for what a judge may do, they may use any source they wish including their own opinion, as a basis for a ruling. It is not uncommon for a judge to have conversations about anything with many people. This may include the drafter of a bill.
Whatever the judge is supposed to do, legal training is largely based around finding ways to justify one's opinion using specific means allowable in a given context. Most judges will be good at this, having had significant practice at doing it.
While technically the answer is no, practically, this could happen through other means.
There is precedent, kinda.
First, to be very clear, I generally agree with everyone who is saying no; but, sometimes judges do do additional research to determine intent.
For example, the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts have been known to cite the Federalist Papers, for example Federalist Paper #78. Though, apparently the most cited federalist paper is Federalist No. 42.
Obviously the jurists are not directly asking the writers of the constitution, but they are using sources to determine intent.
How prevalent this practice is outside this one example I cannot say as a non-expert.
First off, what you ask is impossible: Laws are generally written by committees, and are then rewritten by other committees and then probably passed by yet another committee.
In a well functioning democracy, the people that hate the law can shape it just as much as the people that love it.
Secondly, even if it was possible, say bills were required to be written by a single legislator and passed or failed without modification, that still wouldn’t make that person an authority on what the law meant, quite the opposite, because then it would mean what people with no input into it wanted it to mean —- they would be passing the bill hoping for Y, but with no way to actually require Y.
It would be giving them special status as compared to everyone else, they would effectively be the final judge. It says what they say it means, no more, and no less.
Their arguments may be instructive, but is not binding.
Finally, there is an old and well known remedy for vagueness —- reject and rewrite.