Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T21:27:15.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2021

Donald L. Drakeman
Donald L. Drakeman
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, Indiana
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Hollow Core of Constitutional Theory
Why We Need the Framers
 , pp. 206 - 228
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, Henry J. The Judicial Process: An Introductory Analysis of the Courts of the United States, England, and France. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Bruce A. “The Storrs Lectures: Discovering the Constitution.” Yale Law Journal 93, 6 (1984): 1013–72.Google Scholar
Alexander, Larry. “Originalism, the Why and the What.” Fordham Law Review 82, 2 (November 2013): 539–44.Google Scholar
Alexander, Larry. “Simple-Minded Originalism.” Chap. 4 in The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation, eds. Huscroft, Grant and Miller, Bradley W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Alexander, Larry and Prakash, Saikrishna. “Is that English You’re Speaking? Why Intention Free Interpretation Is an Impossibility.” San Diego Law Review 41, 3 (August–September 2004): 967–95.Google Scholar
Alexy, Robert. Theorie der juristischen Argumentation: Die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1978.Google Scholar
Alicea, Joel. “Forty Years of Originalism.” Policy Review, 173 (June/July 2012): 69–79.Google Scholar
Alicea, Joel and Drakeman, Donald L.. “The Limits of New Originalism.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 15, 4 (April 2013): 1161–20.Google Scholar
Amar, Akhil Reed. America’s Constitution: A Biography. New York: Random House, 2005.Google Scholar
Amar, Akhil Reed. The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Amar, Akhil Reed. “Philadelphia Revisited: Amending the Constitution Outside Article V.” University of Chicago Law Review 55, 4 (1988): 1043–104.Google Scholar
Antkowiak, Thomas M. “Truth as Right and Remedy in International Human Rights Experience.” Michigan Journal of International Law 23, 4 (Summer 2002): 977–1013.Google Scholar
Aprill, Ellen P. “The Law of the Word: Dictionary Shopping in the Supreme Court,” Arizona State Law Journal 30 (1998): 275–336.Google Scholar
Articles Agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of Both Provinces, and the Whole Clergy: In the Convocation Holden at London, in the yeere 1562. For the Avoiding of Diversities of Opinion, and for the stablishing of Consent Touching True Religion. London: Bonham Norton & John Bill, 1629.Google Scholar
Baade, Hans W. “‘Original Intent’ in Historical Perspective: Some Critical Glosses.” Texas Law Review 69, 5 (April 1991): 1001–108.Google Scholar
Backus, Isaac. An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, Against the Oppressions of the Present Day. Boston, 1773.Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael A. and Maltzman, Forrest. The Constrained Court: Law, Politics, and the Decisions Justices Make. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Baker, John. “The Legal Force and Effect of Magna Carta.” Chap. 6 in Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor, ed. Holland, Randy J.. Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2014.Google Scholar
Baker, Leonard. John Marshall: A Life in Law. New York: Macmillan, 1974.Google Scholar
Balkin, Jack. “Why Are Americans Originalist?” Chap. 18 in Law, Society and Community: Socio-Legal Essays in Honour of Roger Cotterrell, eds. Nobles, Richard and Schiff, David. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2014.Google Scholar
Balkin, Jack M. Living Originalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balkin, Jack M. “What Brown Teaches Us about Constitutional Theory.” Virginia Law Review 90, 6 (October 2004): 1537–78.Google Scholar
Balkin, Jack M. “Preface.” In What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said: The Nation’s Top Legal Experts Rewrite America’s Landmark Civil Rights Decision, ed. Jack, M. Balkin. New York: New York University Press, 2002, pp. ix–xii.Google Scholar
Balkin, Jack M. “Rewriting Brown: A Guide to the Opinions.” What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said: The Nation’s Top Legal Experts Rewrite America’s Landmark Civil Rights Decision, ed. Balkin, Jack M.. New York: New York University Press, 2002, pp. 44–76.Google Scholar
Barak, Aharon. Purposive Interpretation in Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Barber, Sotirios A. and Fleming, James E.. Constitutional Interpretation: The Basic Questions. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Barclay, Stephanie H., Earley, Brady, and Boone, Annika. “Original Meaning and the Establishment Clause: A Corpus Linguistics Analysis.” Arizona Law Review 61 (2019): 505–60.Google Scholar
Barnett, Randy. “Originalism and Brown.” Volokh Conspiracy (blog), May 12, 2005, www.volokh.com/posts/1115921115.shtml.Google Scholar
Barnett, Randy E. Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Barnett, Randy E. “New Evidence of the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause.” Arkansas Law Review 55, 4 (2003): 847–900.Google Scholar
Barnett, Randy E. “An Originalism for Nonoriginalists.” Loyola Law Review 45, 4 (Winter 1999): 611–54.Google Scholar
Barnett, Randy E. The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Barnett, Randy E. and Bernick, Evan D.. “The Letter and the Spirit: A Unified Theory of Originalism.” Georgetown Law Journal 107, 1 (October 2018): 1–56.Google Scholar
Bassham, Gregory and Oakley, Ian. “New Textualism: The Potholes Ahead.” Ratio Juris 28, 1 (March 2015): 127–48.Google Scholar
Baude, William. “Is Originalism Our Law?” Columbia Law Review 115, 8 (December 2015): 2349–408.Google Scholar
Baude, Will. “Does Originalism Justify Brown, and Why Do We Care So Much?” Volokh Conspiracy (blog), Washington Post, January 24, 2014, www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/29/does-originalism-justify-brown-and-why-do-we-care-so-much.Google Scholar
Baude, William and Campbell, Jud. “Early American Constitutional History: A Source Guide.” Unpublished manuscript, October 31, 2018, https://perma.cc/326P-Q9V7.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence and Devins, Neal. “Why the Supreme Court Cares about Elites, Not the American People.” Georgetown Law Journal 98, 6 (August 2010): 1515–82.Google Scholar
Beard, Charles A. The Republic. New York: Viking Press, 1943.Google Scholar
Bell, John. Policy Arguments in Judicial Decisions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Bennion, Francis. Statutory Interpretation. 3rd ed. London: Butterworths, 1997.Google Scholar
Berger, Raoul. “‘Original Intention’ in Historical Perspective.” George Washington Law Review 54, 2/3 (1985–86): 296–337.Google Scholar
Berger, Raoul. Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Berlin, Isaiah. The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy’s View of History. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1953.Google Scholar
Berman, Harold J. Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Berman, Mitchell N. “Originalism Is Bunk.” New York University Law Review 84, 1 (April 2009): 1–96.Google Scholar
Bevan, Chris. “Interpreting Statutory Purpose – Lessons from Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council.” Modern Law Review 76, 4 (July 2013): 742–56.Google Scholar
Beveridge, William, ed. The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion, Established in the Church of England: With Expository Observations […] Extracted from the Learned and Famous Exposition of […] Bishop Beveridge. London: M. Lewis, 1757.Google Scholar
Bickel, Alexander M. “The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision.” Harvard Law Review 69, 1 (November 1955): 1–65.Google Scholar
Bilder, Mary Sarah. Madison’s Hand: Revising the Constitutional Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bingham, Tom. The Rule of Law. London: Allen Lane, 2010.Google Scholar
Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England: In Four Books, ed. Sharswood, George. Philadelphia, 1893.Google Scholar
Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England: In Four Books; With an Analysis of the Work, eds. Christian, Edward, Chitty, Joseph, Lee, Thomas, Hoyenden, John Eykyn, and Ryland, Archer. 19th ed. New York, 1846.Google Scholar
Bobbitt, Philip. Constitutional Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.Google Scholar
Bobbitt, Philip. Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Bork, Robert H. “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems.” Indiana Law Journal 47, 1 (Fall 1971): 1–35.Google Scholar
Bowling, Kenneth R. “‘A Tub to the Whale’: The Founding Fathers and Adoption of the Federal Bill of Rights.” Journal of the Early Republic 8, 3 (Autumn 1988): 223–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Danah and Crawford, Kate. “Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a Cultural, Technological, and Scholarly Phenomenon.” Information, Communication & Society 15, 5 (June 2012): 662–79.Google Scholar
Boyer, Paul S. “Borrowed Rhetoric: The Massachusetts Excise Controversy of 1754.” William and Mary Quarterly 21, 3 (July 1964): 328–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braman, Eileen. Law, Politics, and Perception: How Policy Preferences Influence Legal Reasoning. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Bratman, Michael E. Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
“The Brennan Center Jorde Symposium: The Living Constitution: A Symposium on the Legacy of Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.” California Law Review 95, 6 (December 2007).Google Scholar
BrennanJr., William J. “The Constitution of the United States: Contemporary Ratification.” South Texas Law Review 27, 3 (Fall 1986): 433–46.Google Scholar
Bressman, Lisa Schultz and R. Gluck, Abbe. “Statutory Interpretation from the Inside: An Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation, and the Canons, Part II.” Stanford Law Review 66, 4 (April 2014): 725–802.Google Scholar
Brest, Paul. “The Misconceived Quest for Original Understanding.” Boston University Law Review 60, 2 (March 1980): 204–38.Google Scholar
Brink, David O. “Semantics and Legal Interpretation (Further Thoughts).” Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 2, 2 (July 1989): 181–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, Herbert. A Selection of Legal Maxims: Classified and Illustrated. London, 1845.Google Scholar
Brudney, James J. “Below the Surface: Comparing Legislative History Usage by the House of Lords and the Supreme Court.” Washington University Law Review 85, 1 (2007): 1–72.Google Scholar
Buckland, W. W. A Text-Book of Roman Law. 3rd ed. Revised by Stein, Peter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Buckley, Thomas E. Church and State in Revolutionary Virginia, 1776–1787. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977.Google Scholar
Bullock, Charles J. “Direct and Indirect Taxes in Economic Literature.” Political Science Quarterly 13, 3 (September 1898): 442–76.Google Scholar
Burgh, J[ames]. Political Disquisitions; Or, An Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses, Illustrated by, and Established Upon Facts and Remarks, Extracted from a variety of Authors, Ancient and Modern: Calculated to Draw the Timely Attention of Government and People, to a Due Consideration of the Necessity, and the Means, of Reforming those Errors, Defects, and Abuses; of Restoring the Constitution, and Saving the State. Vol. 1. Philadelphia, 1775.Google Scholar
Burns, J. H. and Hart, H. L. A., eds. The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham: A Comment on the Commentaries and a Fragment on Government. 1977; repr. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Burrows, J. F. “The Problem of Time in Statutory Interpretation.” New Zealand Law Journal (1978).Google Scholar
Burstein, Andrew. Democracy’s Muse: How Thomas Jefferson Became an FDR Liberal, a Reagan Republican, and a Tea Party Fanatic, All the While Being Dead. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2015.Google Scholar
BYU Law & Corpus Linguistics. Accessed August 27, 2019, https://lawcorpus.byu.edu.Google Scholar
Calabresi, Steven G., ed. Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2007.Google Scholar
Calabresi, Steven G. and Zimdahl, Stephanie Dotson. “The Supreme Court and Foreign Sources of Law: Two Hundred Years of Practice and the Juvenile Death Penalty Decision.” William and Mary Law Review 47, 3 (December 2005): 743–909.Google Scholar
Campbell, Neil A. “Legal Research and the Exclusionary Rule.” Canadian Law Library Review 36, 4 (2011): 158–66.Google Scholar
Carbonell, Flavia. “Reasoning by Consequences: Applying Different Argumentation Structures to the Analysis of Consequentialist Reasoning in Judicial Decisions.” Cogency 3, 2 (Summer 2011): 81–104.Google Scholar
Carpenter, David. “Magna Carta and Society: Women, Peasants, Jews, the Towns and the Church.” Chap. 4 in Magna Carta, trans. Carpenter, David. London: Penguin, 2015.Google Scholar
Carroll, Lewis. Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There. Philadelphia, 1897.Google Scholar
Casto, William. “Oliver Ellsworth’s Calvinism: A Biographical Essay on Religion and Political Psychology in the Early Republic.” Journal of Church and State 36, 3 (Summer 1994): 507–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“The Church of England a True and Apostolicall Church.” Chap. 3 in Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall: Treated upon by the Bishop of London, President of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, and the Rest of the Bishops and Clergie of the Said Province. London, 1604.Google Scholar
Clark, Kenneth B., Chein, Isidor, and Cook, Stuart W.. “The Effects of Segregation and the Consequences of Desegregation: A (September 1952) Social Science Statement in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Supreme Court Case.” American Psychologist 59, 6 (September 2004): 495–501.Google Scholar
Clark, Tom S. The Limits of Judicial Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Cogan, Neil H., ed. The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources, and Origins. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Cohen, Morris L. and O’Connor, Sharon Hamby. A Guide to the Early Reports of the Supreme Court of the United States. Littleton, CO: F. B. Rothman, 1995.Google Scholar
Coke, Edward. The Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England: Concerning the Jurisdiction of Courts. London, 1809.Google Scholar
Coke, Edward. The Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England: Containing the Exposition of Many Ancient and Other Statutes. London, 1797.Google Scholar
Colby, Thomas B. “The Sacrifice of the New Originalism.” Georgetown Law Journal 99, 3 (March 2011): 713–78.Google Scholar
Collins Webster’s Dictionary, Revised and Updated. London: HarperCollins, 2007.Google Scholar
Collinson, Patrick. The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society, 1559–1625. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Conservative Party. Protecting Human Rights in the UK: The Conservatives’ Proposals for Changing Britain’s Human Rights Laws. London: Alan Mabbutt, 2014, www.conservatives.com/~/media/files/downloadable%20Files/human_rights.pdf.Google Scholar
Cooley, Thomas M. A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations which Rest upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union. Boston, 1868.Google Scholar
Cooter, Robert. “Constitutional Consequentialism: Bargain Democracy versus Median Democracy,” Theoretical Inquiries in Law 3, 1 (2002): 1–20.Google Scholar
Cornell, Saul. “The People’s Constitution vs. The Lawyer’s Constitution: Popular Constitutionalism and the Original Debate over Originalism.” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 23, 2 (Summer 2011): 295–338.Google Scholar
Cornell, Saul. “Originalism on Trial: The Use and Abuse of History in District of Columbia v. Heller.” Ohio State Law Journal 69, 4 (2008): 625–40.Google Scholar
Cornell, Saul. The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788–1828. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Corpora of Historical English (1500s–Early/Mid 1900s). Accessed August 27, 2019, http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/personal/histengcorp.htm.Google Scholar
Corpus of Founding Era American English (COFEA). Accessed September 13, 2019, https://lcl.byu.edu/projects/cofea/.Google Scholar
Craies, William Feilden. A Treatise on Statute Law: With Appendices Containing Statutory and Judicial Definitions of Certain Words and Expressions used in Statutes, Popular and Short Titles of Statutes, and the Interpretation Act, 1889. 2nd ed. London: Stevens & Haynes, 1911.Google Scholar
Crook, D. P. “The United States in Bentham’s Thought.” Australian Journal of Politics and History 10, 2 (August 1964): 196–204.Google Scholar
Cross, Frank B. The Failed Promise of Originalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Cross, Rupert. Statutory Interpretation, eds. Bell, John and Engle, George. 3rd ed. London: Butterworths, 1995.Google Scholar
Cross, Rupert. Statutory Interpretation, eds. Bell, John and Engle, George. 2nd ed. London: Butterworths, 1987.Google Scholar
Cross, Rupert. Statutory Interpretation. London: Butterworths, 1976.Google Scholar
Cserne, Péter. “Consequence-Based Arguments in Legal Reasoning: A Jurisprudential Preface to Law and Economics.” In Efficiency, Sustainability, and Justice to Future Generations, ed. Mathis, Klaus. New York: Springer, 2011.Google Scholar
Cunningham, Clark D. and Egbert, Jesse. “Scientific Methods for Analyzing Original Meaning: Corpus Linguistics and the Emoluments Clauses.” Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 2019–02, Georgia State University College of Law, February 2019, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321438.Google Scholar
Currie, David P. The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second Century, 1888–1986. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Currie, David P. The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years, 1789–1888. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Curry, Thomas J. The First Freedoms: Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Curry, Thomas John. “The First Freedoms: The Development of the Concepts of Religion and Establishment.” PhD diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1983.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. “Radical Interpretation.” Dialectica 27, 3/4 (1973): 313–28.Google Scholar
Davies, Thomas Y. “Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment.” Michigan Law Review 98, 3 (December 1999): 547–750.Google Scholar
Deckert, Martina R. Folgenorientierung in der Rechtsanwendung. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1995.Google Scholar
Del Mar, Maksymilian. “The Forward-Looking Requirement of Formal Justice: Neil MacCormick on Consequential Reasoning.” Jurisprudence 6, 3 (2015): 429–50.Google Scholar
Dorf, Michael C. “The Use of Foreign Law in American Constitutional Interpretation: A Revealing Colloquy between Justices Scalia and Breyer.” FindLaw, January 19, 2005, https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-use-of-foreign-law-in-american-constitutional-interpretation.html.Google Scholar
Drakeman, Donald L. “Which Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause Is the Right One?” In The Cambridge Companion to the First Amendment and Religious Liberty, eds. D. Breidenbach, Michael and Anderson, Owen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020, pp. 365–95.Google Scholar
Drakeman, Donald L. “Consequentialism and the Limits of Interpretation: Do the Ends Justify the Meanings?” Jurisprudence 9, 2 (2018): 300–318.Google Scholar
Drakeman, Donald L. “Constitutional Counterpoint: Legislative Debates, Statutory Interpretation and the Separation of Powers.” Statute Law Review 38, 1 (February 2017): 116–24.Google Scholar
Drakeman, Donald L. Why We Need the Humanities: Life Science, Law and the Common Good. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drakeman, Donald L. “The Antifederalists and Religion.” In Faith and the Founders of the American Republic, eds. Dreisbach, Daniel L. and David Hall, Mark. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 120–43.Google Scholar
Drakeman, Donald L. “What’s the Point of Originalism?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 37, 3 (2014): 1123–50.Google Scholar
Drakeman, Donald L. Church, State and Original Intent. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Drakeman, Donald L. “James Madison and the First Amendment Establishment of Religion Clause.” In Religion and Political Culture in Jefferson’s Virginia, eds. Sheldon, Garrett Ward and Dreisbach, Daniel L.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, pp. 219–34.Google Scholar
Dreier, Ralf. “Interpretation.” In Staatslexikon. 7th ed. Freiburg: Herder, 1987.Google Scholar
Dreisbach, Daniel L. Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State. New York: New York University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Dreisbach, Daniel L. and Hall, Mark David, eds. The Sacred Rights of Conscience: Selected Readings on Religious Liberty and Church–State Relations in the American Founding. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2009.Google Scholar
Duke, George, and George, Robert P., eds. The Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunne, Gerald T. “Early Court Reporters,” Yearbook 1976 Supreme Court Historical Society (1976): 61–72.Google Scholar
Duxbury, Neil. Elements of Legislation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996; repr. 2005.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. “Comment.” In A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, by Scalia, Antonin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997, pp. 115–28.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. Taking Rights Seriously. London: Bloomsbury, 1997.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. A Matter of Principle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Easterbrook, Frank H. “Statutes’ Domains.” University of Chicago Law Review 50, 2 (Spring 1983): 481–503.Google Scholar
Ehrett, John S. “Against Corpus Linguistics.” Georgetown Law Journal Online 108 (Spring 2019): 50–73.Google Scholar
Eisgruber, Christopher L. Constitutional Self-Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Eisgruber, Christopher L. “The Living Hand of the Past: History and Constitutional Justice.” Fordham Law Review 65, 4 (March 1997): 1611–26.Google Scholar
Eisgruber, Christopher L. and Sager, Lawrence G.. Religious Freedom and the Constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekins, Richard. “Objects of Interpretation.” Constitutional Commentary 32, 1 (2017): 1–26.Google Scholar
Ekins, Richard. “Updating the Meaning of Violence.” Law Quarterly Review 129 (2013): 17–20.Google Scholar
Ekins, Richard. “Equal Protection and Social Meaning.” American Journal of Jurisprudence 57, 1 (2012): 21–8.Google Scholar
Ekins, Richard. The Nature of Legislative Intent. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Ekins, Richard and Goldsworthy, Jeffrey. “The Reality and Indispensability of Legislative Intentions.” Sydney Law Review 36, 1 (2014): 39–68.Google Scholar
Elkins, Zachary, Ginsburg, Tom, and Melton, James. The Endurance of National Constitutions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia, in 1787, Together with the Journal of the Federal Convention, […] Collected and Revised from Contemporary Publications by Jonathan Elliot, ed. Jonathan Elliot. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, 1836.Google Scholar
Ellis, Joseph J. Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. New York: Knopf, 2000.Google Scholar
Ely, John Hart. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Endlich, G. A. A Commentary on the Interpretation of Statutes. Jersey City, NJ, 1888.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Knight, Jack, and Martin, Andrew D.. “The Norm of Prior Judicial Experience and Its Consequences for Career Diversity on the U.S. Supreme Court.” California Law Review 91, 4 (July 2003): 903–66.Google Scholar
EskridgeJr., William N. “All about Words: Early Understandings of the ‘Judicial Power’ in Statutory Interpretation, 1776–1806.” Columbia Law Review 101, 5 (June 2001): 990–1106.Google Scholar
EskridgeJr., William N. “The New Textualism.” UCLA Law Review 37, 4 (April 1990): 621–92.Google Scholar
EskridgeJr., William N. and Frickey, Philip P.. “Statutory Interpretation as Practical Reasoning.” Stanford Law Review 42, 2 (January 1990): 321–84.Google Scholar
“Exit Polls.” CNN. Updated November 23, 2019, www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls.Google Scholar
FallonJr., Richard H. Law and Legitimacy in the Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm M. and Rubin, Edward L.. Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America’s Prisons. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Ferguson, James R. “Reason in Madness: The Political Thought of James Otis.” William and Mary Quarterly 36, 2 (April 1979): 194–214.Google Scholar
Feteris, Eveline T. “The Rational Reconstruction of Argumentation Referring to Consequences and Purposes in the Application of Legal Rules: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.” Argumentation 19, 4 (November 2005): 459–70.Google Scholar
Finnis, John. “Judicial Power: Past, Present and Future.” Lecture presented at Gray’s Inn, London, October 20, 2015, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2710880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnis, John. Natural Law and Natural Rights. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Finnis, John. Aquinas: Moral, Political, and Legal Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Finnis, John, Boyle, Joseph, and Grisez, Germain. Nuclear Deterrence, Morality and Realism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley. “The Intentionalist Thesis Once More.” Chap. 5 in The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation, eds. Huscroft, Grant and Miller, Bradley W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley. “Working on the Chain Gang: Interpretation in the Law and in Literary Criticism.” Critical Inquiry 9, 1 (September 1982): 201–16.Google Scholar
Fisher, Louis. Reconsidering Judicial Finality: Why the Supreme Court Is Not the Last Word on the Constitution. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2019.Google Scholar
Fiss, Owen M. “Foreword: The Forms of Justice.” Harvard Law Review 93, 1 (1979): 1–58.Google Scholar
Flaherty, David H. “An Introduction to Early American Legal History.” In Essays in the History of Early American Law, ed. Flaherty, David H.. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
Flaherty, Martin S. “History ‘Lite’ in Modern American Constitutionalism.” Columbia Law Review 95, 3 (April 1995): 523–90.Google Scholar
Fleet, Elizabeth. “Madison’s ‘Detached Memoranda.’” William and Mary Quarterly 3, 4 (October 1946): 534–68.Google Scholar
Fleming, James E. Fidelity to Our Imperfect Constitution: For Moral Readings and Against Originalisms. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Fontana, David. “Response: Comparative Originalism.” Texas Law Review 88 (2010): 188–99.Google Scholar
Ford, Paul Leicester, ed. The Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson, 1743–1790. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Foxe, John. The New and Complete Book of Martyrs; Or, An Universal History of Martyrdom: being Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Revised and Corrected, with Additions and Great Improvements: Containing an Authentic Account of the Lives, Persecutions and Suffering of the Holy Martyrs […]. Vol. 1. New York, 1794.Google Scholar
Franck, Matthew J. Introduction to The Doctrine of Judicial Review: Its Legal and Historical Basis and Other Essays, by Corwin, Edward S. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2014.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry G. On Bullshit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Frankfurter, Felix. “John Marshall and the Judicial Function.” In James Bradley Thayer, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Felix Frankfurter on John Marshall. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Frost, Daniel. “Getting into Mischief: On What It Means to Appeal to the U.S. Constitution.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 28, 2 (2015): 267–87.Google Scholar
Gales, Joseph, ed. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, with an Appendix, Containing Important State Papers and Public Documents, and All the Laws of a Public Nature; with a Copius Index, compiled from Authentic Materials. Vols. 1–2, March 3, 1789, to March 3, 1791. Washington, DC, 1834.Google Scholar
George, Robert P. “Natural Law, the Constitution, and the Theory and Practice of Judicial Review.” Fordham Law Review 69, 6 (2001): 2269–84.Google Scholar
George, Robert P. In Defense of Natural Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. “The Collapse of Constitutional Originalism and the Rise of the Notion of the ‘Living Constitution’ in the Course of American State-Building.” Studies in American Political Development 11, 2 (Fall 1997): 191–247.Google Scholar
Gluck, Abbe R. and Bressman, Lisa Schultz. “Statutory Interpretation from the Inside: An Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation, and the Canons, Part I.” Stanford Law Review 65, 5 (May 2013): 901–1025.Google Scholar
GoebelJr., Julius. The Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise: History of the Supreme Court of the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
GoebelJr., Julius and Smith, Joseph H., eds. The Law Practice of Alexander Hamilton: Documents and Commentary. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Goldfarb, Neal. “Corpus Linguistics in Legal Interpretation: When Is It (In)appropriate?” Lecture presented at BYU Law School, Provo, UT, February 6–8, 2019, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3333512.Google Scholar
Goldford, Dennis J. The American Constitution and the Debate over Originalism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Goldsworthy, Jeffrey. “Originalism in Australia.” DPCE Online 31, 3 (October 2017): 607–15, www.dpceonline.it/index.php/dpceonline/article/view/432.Google Scholar
Goldsworthy, Jeffrey. “The Case for Originalism.” In The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation, eds. Huscroft, Grant and Miller, Bradley W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Goldsworthy, Jeffrey, ed. Interpreting Constitutions: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Goldsworthy, Jeffrey. “Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation.” Federal Law Review 25, 1 (1997): 1–50.Google Scholar
Goldwater, Barry. The Conscience of a Conservative. 1960; repr. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Gorsuch, Neil. A Republic, if You Can Keep It. New York: Random House, 2019.Google Scholar
Green, Christopher R. “‘This Constitution’: Constitutional Indexicals as a Basis for Textualist Semi-Originalism.” Notre Dame Law Review 84, 4 (2009): 1607–74.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, Kent. “Philosophy of Language, Linguistics, and Possible Lessons about Originalism.” Chap. 2 in The Nature of Legal Interpretation: What Jurists Can Learn about Legal Interpretation from Linguistics and Philosophy, ed. Slocum, Brain G.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, Kent. Statutory and Common Law Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Greene, Jamal. “On the Origins of Originalism.” Texas Law Review 88, 1 (November 2009): 1–90.Google Scholar
Greene, Jamal. “Selling Originalism.” Georgetown Law Journal 97, 3 (March 2009): 657–722.Google Scholar
Greene, Jamal, Persily, Nathaniel, and Ansolabehere, Stephen. “Profiling Originalism.” Columbia Law Review 111, 2 (March 2011), 356–418.Google Scholar
Grey, Thomas C. “Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution?” Stanford Law Review 27, 3 (February 1975): 703–18.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, eds. Cole, Peter and Jerry, L. Morgan. Vol. 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. “Utterer’s Meaning and Intentions.” Philosophical Review 78, 2 (April 1969): 147–77.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. “Utterer’s Meaning, Sentence-Meaning, and Word-Meaning.” Foundations of Language 4, 3 (August 1968): 225–42.Google Scholar
Griffin, Stephen M. “Rebooting Originalism.” University of Illinois Law Review, 4 (2008): 1185–223.Google Scholar
Grotius, Hugo. De jure belli ac pacis libri tres in quibus jus naturae & gentium, item juris publici praecipua explicantur : cum annotatis auctoris, ejusdemque dissertatione de Mari libero, ac libello singulari De aequitate, indulgentia, & facilitate, nec non Joann. Frid. Gronovii v.c. notis in totum opus De jure belli ac pacis. 1720.Google Scholar
Hale, Brenda Marjorie. “Beanstalk or Living Instrument? How Tall Can the European Convention on Human Rights Grow?” Lecture presented at Gray’s Inn, London, June 16, 2011, www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/print/beanstalk-or-living-instrument-how-tall-can-the-european-convention-on-human/.Google Scholar
Hall, Mark David. Roger Sherman and the Creation of the American Republic. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Hall, Matthew E. K. What Justices Want: Goals and Personality on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Hall, Matthew E. K. The Nature of Supreme Court Power. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Hamburger, Philip. Law and Judicial Duty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Hamburger, Philip A. “Natural Rights, Natural Law, and American Constitutions.” Yale Law Journal 102, 4 (1993): 907–60.Google Scholar
Hamburger, Philip A. “The Constitution’s Accommodation of Social Change.” Michigan Law Review 88, 2 (November 1989): 239–327.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander. “The Examination Number XV.” March 3, 1802 in The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, edited by Harold C. Syrett. Vol. 25, July 1800–April 1802. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander. The Federalist Papers. No. 83. in The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed83.asp.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander. “Opinion on the Constitutionality of an Act to Establish a Bank.” February 23, 1791 in The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, edited by Harold C. Syrett. Vol. 8, February 1791–July 1791. New York: Columbia University Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. “American Jurisprudence through English Eyes: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream.” Chap. 4 in Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983).Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.” Harvard Law Review 71, 4 (February 1958): 593–629.Google Scholar
Healy, Michael P. “Legislative Intent and Statutory Interpretation in England and the United States: An Assessment of the Impact of Pepper v. Hart.” Stanford Journal of International Law 35, 2 (Summer 1999): 231–54.Google Scholar
Helmholz, R. H. Natural Law in Court: A History of Legal Theory in Practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, David C. Peace Pact: The Lost World of the American Founding. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003.Google Scholar
Hening, William Waller. The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619. Richmond, 1809.Google Scholar
Herenstein, Ethan J. “The Faulty Frequency Hypothesis: Difficulties in Operationalizing Ordinary Meaning through Corpus Linguistics.” Stanford Law Review Online 70 (December 2017): 112–22.Google Scholar
Hershovitz, Scott, ed. Exploring Law’s Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Hessick, Carissa Byrne. “Corpus Linguistics and the Criminal Law.” Brigham Young University Law Review, 6 (2017): 1503–30.Google Scholar
Hobson, Charles F. “The Marshall Court, 1801–1835: Law, Politics, and the Emergence of the Federal Judiciary.” In The United States Supreme Court: The Pursuit of Justice, ed. Tomlins, Christopher. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 2005, pp. 47–74.Google Scholar
Hoeveler, J. David. Creating the American Mind: Intellect and Politics in the Colonial Colleges. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.Google Scholar
Hoffer, Peter Charles. Law and People in Colonial America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Hogg, Peter W. “Canada: From Privy Council to Supreme Court.” Chap. 2 in Interpreting Constitutions: A Comparative Study, ed. Goldsworthy, Jeffrey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Holton, Woody. Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution. New York: Hill & Wang, 2007.Google Scholar
Hotman, Franciscus. Antitribonianus Sive Dissertatio de Studio Legum. 1603.Google Scholar
Howard, A. E. Dick. “Magna Carta’s American Journey.” Chap. 8 in Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor, ed. Holland, Randy J.. Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2014.Google Scholar
Hunter, Nan D. “Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation.” In Global Perspectives on Constitutional Law, eds. Amar, Vikram David and Tushnet, Mark V.. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 116–29.Google Scholar
Hurst, D. J. “Palm Trees in the House of Lords: Some Further Thoughts on Boland’s Case.” Statute Law Review 4, 3 (Autumn 1983): 142–65.Google Scholar
Hurst, D. J. “The Problem of the Elderly Statute.” Legal Studies 3, 1 (March 1983): 21–42.Google Scholar
Hutson, James H. “The Creation of the Constitution: The Integrity of the Documentary Record.” Texas Law Review 65, 1 (November 1986): 1–39.Google Scholar
“In His Own Words: The President’s Attacks on the Courts.” Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. June 5, 2017, www.brennancenter.org/analysis/his-own-words-presidents-attacks-courts.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Thomas. To James Madison, September 6, 1789. In The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian, P. Boyd. Vol. 15, 27 March 1789 to 30 November 1789. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1958 , p. 396.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Thomas. To Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820. In The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Ford, Paul Leicester. Vol. 12, Correspondence and Papers 1816–1826. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905, pp. 177–8.Google Scholar
Jensen, Merrill, ed. The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. Vol. 1, Constitutional Documents and Records, 1776–1787. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1976.Google Scholar
Jensen, Merrill, Kaminski, John P., and Saladino, Gaspare J., eds. The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. Vol. 15, Commentaries on the Constitution, Public and Private, 18 December 1787 to 31 January 1788. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1976.Google Scholar
Johansen, David and Rosen, Philip. “The Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter.” Background Paper BP-194E. Ottawa, Canada: Library of Parliament, 2005, http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP-e/bp194-1e.pdf.Google Scholar
Johnson, Samuel. A Dictionary of the English Language: In Which the Words Are Deduced from Their Originals, and Illustrated in Their Different Significations by Examples from the Best Writers, 6th ed. (London, 1785).Google Scholar
Josephus, Flavius. The Whole, Genuine, and Complete Works of Flavius Josephus … Translated from the Original in the Greek Language, And diligently Revised and Compared with the Writings of Contemporary Authors, of Different Nations, on the Subject […], trans. George Henry Maynard. New York, 1792.Google Scholar
Joyce, Craig. “The Rise of the Supreme Court Reporter: An Institutional Perspective on Marshall Court Ascendancy.” Michigan Law Review 83, 5 (April 1985): 1291–391.Google Scholar
Kahn, Ronald. “The Constitution Restoration Act, Judicial Independence, and Popular Constitutionalism.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 56, 4 (Summer 2006): 1083–1118.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Abraham. The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. New York: Routledge, 2017.Google Scholar
Katzmann, Robert A. Judging Statutes. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Kavanagh, Aileen. “Pepper v Hart and Matters of Constitutional Principle.” Law Quarterly Review 121 (January 2005): 98–122.Google Scholar
Kavanagh, Aileen. “Original Intention, Enacted Text, and Constitutional Interpretation.” American Journal of Jurisprudence 47 (2002): 255–98.Google Scholar
Kersch, Ken I. “The Talking Cure: How Constitutional Argument Drives Constitutional Development.” Boston University Law Review 94, 3 (May 2014): 1083–108.Google Scholar
Kersch, Ken I. Constructing Civil Liberties: Discontinuities in the Development of American Constitutional Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Kesavan, Vasan, and Paulsen, Michael Stokes. “The Interpretive Force of the Constitution’s Secret Drafting History.” Georgetown Law Journal 91, 6 (August 2003): 1113–214.Google Scholar
Kim, Clare. “Justice Scalia: Constitution Is ‘Dead.’” MSNBC, January 29, 2013, updated October 2, 2013, www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/justice-scalia-constitution-dead.Google Scholar
Kinley, David. “Constitutional Brokerage in Australia: Constitutions and the Doctrines of Parliamentary Supremacy and the Rule of Law.” Federal Law Review 22, 1 (1994): 194–204.Google Scholar
Koppelman, Andrew. The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Kozel, Randy J. Settled Versus Right: A Theory of Precedent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Labunski, Richard. James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Lawson, Gary. “On Reading Recipes … and Constitutions.” Georgetown Law Journal 85, 6 (June 1997): 1823–36.Google Scholar
Lee, Thomas R. and Phillips, James C.. “Data-Driven Originalism.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 167, 2 (January 2019): 261–335.Google Scholar
Leiter, Brian. “Constitutional Law, Moral Judgment, and the Supreme Court as Super-Legislature.” Hastings Law Journal 66, 6 (2015): 1601–17.Google Scholar
Lepore, Jill. The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party’s Revolution and the Battle over American History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Lessig, Lawrence. Fidelity and Constraint: How the Supreme Court Has Read the American Constitution. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.Google Scholar
Letsas, George. “Rescuing Proportionality.” In Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, eds. Rowan Cruft, S. Liao, Matthew, and Renzo, Massimo. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 316–40.Google Scholar
Leuchtenburg, William E. “The Origins of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ‘Court-Packing’ Plan.” Supreme Court Review 1966 (1966): 347–400.Google Scholar
Levinson, Sanford. Constitutional Faith. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Gordon. “Marshall v. Madison: The Supreme Court and Original Intent, 1803–35.” Criminal Justice Ethics 32, 1 (April 2013): 20–50.Google Scholar
Lofgren, Charles A. “The Original Understanding of Original Intent?” Constitutional Commentary 5, 1 (Winter 1988): 77–114.Google Scholar
Loveland, Ian. Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Maclean, Ian. Interpretation and Meaning in the Renaissance: The Case of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Maclean, Ian. “Responsibility and the Act of Interpretation: The Case of Law.” In The Political Responsibility of Intellectuals, eds. Maclean, Ian, Montefiore, Alan, and Winch, Peter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp. 161–88.Google Scholar
Madison, James. The Federalist Papers. No. 37. in The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed37.asp.Google Scholar
Madison, James. The Federalist Papers. No. 40 in The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed40.asp.Google Scholar
Madison, James. The Papers of James Madison: Purchased by Order of Congress; Being His Correspondence And Reports of Debates During the Congress of the Confederation and His Reports of Debates in the Federal Convention: Now Published from the Original Manuscripts Deposited in the Department of State, ed. Henry, D. Gilpin. Vol. 2. New York: J. & H.G. Langley, 1841.Google Scholar
Maggs, Gregory E. “A Concise Guide to Using Dictionaries from the Founding Era to Determine the Original Meaning of the Constitution,” George Washington Law Review 82 (2014): 358–93.Google Scholar
Maggs, Gregory E. “A Concise Guide to the Records of the State Ratifying Conventions as a Source of the Original Meaning of the U.S. Constitution.” University of Illinois Law Review, 2 (2009): 457–96.Google Scholar
Magyar, John James. “The Evolution of Hansard Use at the Supreme Court of Canada: A Comparative Study in Statutory Interpretation.” Statute Law Review 33, 3 (October 2012): 363–89.Google Scholar
Maier, Pauline. Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010.Google Scholar
Manning, John. Commentaries on the First Book of Blackstone. Chapel Hill, NC, 1899.Google Scholar
Manning, John F. “Inside Congress’ Mind.” Columbia Law Review 115, 7 (November 2015): 1911–52.Google Scholar
Manning, John F. “The Role of the Philadelphia Convention in Constitutional Adjudication.” George Washington Law Review 80, 6 (November 2012): 1753–93.Google Scholar
Manning, John F. “Textualism and the Equity of the Statute.” Columbia Law Review 101, 1 (January 2001): 1–127.Google Scholar
Manning, John F. “Textualism and the Role of The Federalist in Constitutional Adjudication.” George Washington Law Review 66, 5/6 (June–August 1998): 1337–65.Google Scholar
Manning, John F. “Textualism as a Nondelegation Doctrine.” Columbia Law Review 97, 3 (April 1997): 673–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmor, Andrei. “Meaning and Belief in Constitutional Interpretation.” Fordham Law Review 82, 2 (November 2013): 577–96.Google Scholar
Marmor, Andrei. Social Conventions: From Language to Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Marmor, Andrei. “The Pragmatics of Legal Language.” Ratio Juris 21, 4 (December 2008): 423–52.Google Scholar
Martin, Francisco Forrest. The Constitution as Treaty: The International Legal Constructionalist Approach to the U.S. Constitution. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Martin, Luther. “The Genuine Information, Delivered to the Legislature of the State of Maryland, Relative to the Proceedings of the General Convention, Lately Held at Philadelphia.” In The Complete Anti-Federalist, ed. Herbert, J. Storing. Vol. 2, Objections of Non-Signers of the Constitution and Major Series of Essays at the Outset. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981, pp. 27–82.Google Scholar
Martin, Peter. The Dictionary Wars: The American Fight over the English Language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019.Google Scholar
Mascott, Jennifer L. “Who Are ‘Officers of the United States’?” Stanford Law Review 70, 2 (February 2018): 443–564.Google Scholar
Mathis, Klaus. “Consequentialism in Law.” In Efficiency, Sustainability, and Justice to Future Generations, ed. Mathis, Klaus. New York: Springer, 2011.Google Scholar
McConnell, Michael W. “Establishment and Disestablishment at the Founding, Part I: Establishment of Religion.” William and Mary Law Review 44, 5 (2003): 2104–208.Google Scholar
McConnell, Michael W. “Originalism and the Desegregation Decisions.” Virginia Law Review 81, 4 (May 1995): 947–1140.Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony and Hardie, Andrew. Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
McGinnis, John O. and Rappaport, Michael B.. “Unifying Original Intent and Original Public Meaning.” Northwestern University Law Review 113, 6 (2019): 1371–418.Google Scholar
McGinnis, John O. and Rappaport, Michael B.. Originalism and the Good Constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
McGinnis, John O. and Rappaport, Michael B.. “Original Methods Originalism: A New Theory of Interpretation and the Case against Construction.” Northwestern University Law Review 103, 2 (2009): 751–802.Google Scholar
McGreevy, John T. Catholicism and American Freedom: A History. New York: W. W. Norton, 2004.Google Scholar
McGreevy, John T. “Thinking on One’s Own: Catholicism in the American Intellectual Imagination, 1928–1960.” Journal of American History 84, 1 (June 1997): 97–131.Google Scholar
McLoughlin, William G. New England Dissent, 1630–1833: The Baptists and the Separation of Church and State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
McManis, Charles R. “The History of First Century American Legal Education: A Revisionist Perspective.” Washington University Law Quarterly 59, 3 (1981): 597–660.Google Scholar
Meese III, Edwin. “The Supreme Court of the United States: Bulwark of a Limited Constitution,” South Texas Law Review 27, 3 (Fall 1986): 455–66.Google Scholar
Meese III, Edwin. “Speech of Attorney General Edwin Meese III to the American Bar Association.” Speech given at The American Bar Association, July 9, 1985. www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/08/23/07–09-1985.pdf.Google Scholar
Miller, Bradley W. “Origin Myth: The Persons Case, the Living Tree, and the New Originalism.” In Challenge of Originalism, eds. Huscroft, Grant and Miller, Bradley W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Moak, Nathaniel C. Reports of Cases Decided by the English Courts: With Notes and References to Kindred Cases and Authorities. Vol. 29. Albany, NY, 1882.Google Scholar
Morgan, Edmund S., ed. Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis, 1764–1766. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959.Google Scholar
Morison, Samuel Eliot. A History of the Constitution of Massachusetts. Boston: Wright & Potter, 1917.Google Scholar
Morley, J. Gareth. “Dead Hands, Living Trees, Historic Compromises: The Senate Reform and Supreme Court Act References Bring the Originalism Debate to Canada.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 53, 3 (Summer 2016): 745–98.Google Scholar
Morse, Jedidiah. The American Universal Geography, or, A View of the Present State of All the Empires, Kingdoms, States, and Republics in the Known World, and of the United States of America in Particular, In Two Parts […]. Vol. 1. Boston, 1793.Google Scholar
Mouritsen, Stephen C. “Corpus Linguistics in Legal Interpretation: An Evolving Interpretive Framework.” International Journal of Language and Law 6 (2017): 67–89.Google Scholar
Mouritsen, Stephen C. “The Dictionary Is Not a Fortress: Definitional Fallacies and a Corpus-Based Approach to Plain Meaning.” Brigham Young University Law Review, 5 (November 2010): 1915–80.Google Scholar
Mullett, Charles F. “Coke and the American Revolution.” Economica, 38 (November 1932): 457–71.Google Scholar
Mulligan, Christina, Douma, Michael, Lind, Hans, and Quinn, Brian. “Founding-Era Translations of the U.S. Constitution.” Constitutional Commentary 31 (2016): 1–53.Google Scholar
Muñoz, Vincent Phillip. “Two Concepts of Religious Liberty: The Natural Rights and Moral Autonomy Approaches to the Free Exercise of Religion.” American Political Science Review 110, 2 (May 2016): 369–81.Google Scholar
Muñoz, Vincent Phillip. “Block that Metaphor.” Review of Church, State, and Original Intent, by Donald L. Drakeman. Claremont Review of Books 10, 4 (Fall 2010): 49–51.Google Scholar
Muñoz, Vincent Phillip. God and the Founders: Madison, Washington, and Jefferson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Muñoz, Vincent Phillip. “The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause and the Impossibility of Its Incorporation.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 8, 4 (August 2006): 585–639.Google Scholar
Murrill, Brandon J. Modes of Constitutional Interpretation. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2018.Google Scholar
Natelson, Robert G. “The Founders’ Hermeneutic: The Real Original Understanding of Original Intent.” Ohio State Law Journal 68, 5 (2007): 1239–306.Google Scholar
National Archives and Records Administration. The Founders Online: Open Access to the Papers of America’s Founding Era; A Report to Congress. Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration, 2008.Google Scholar
Neuberger, David. “The UK Constitutional Settlement and the Role of the UK Supreme Court.” Lecture presented at Legal Wales Conference, Bangor, Wales, October 10, 2014, www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-141010.pdf.Google Scholar
Neumann, Ulfrid. “Juristische Argumentationstheorie.” In Handbuch Rechtsphilosophie, eds. Hilgendorf, Eric and Joerden, Jan C.. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 2017, pp. 234–41.Google Scholar
Nourse, Victoria. Misreading Law, Misreading Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Oliphant, Benjamin and Sirota, Léonid. “Has the Supreme Court of Canada Rejected ‘Originalism’?” Queen’s Law Journal 42, 1 (Fall 2016): 107–64.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Johnathan. Originalism in American Law and Politics: A Constitutional History. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary Online. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Page, Scott E. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Paschal, George W. The Constitution of the United States Defined and Carefully Annotated. Washington, DC, 1868.Google Scholar
Paulsen, Michael Stokes. “How to Interpret the Constitution (and How Not To).” Yale Law Journal 115, 8 (June 2006): 2037–66.Google Scholar
Pearson, Ellen Holmes. “1775–1815.” Chap. 3 in A Companion to American Legal History, eds. Hadden, Sally E and Brophy, Alfred L. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.Google Scholar
Pendleton, Edmund. “United States against Hilton: Some Remarks on the Argument of Mr. Wickham.” Aurora General Advertiser, February 11, 1796.Google Scholar
Peterson, Merrill D. “Mr. Jefferson’s ‘Sovereignty of the Living Generation.’” Virginia Quarterly Review 52, 3 (Summer 1976): 437–47.Google Scholar
Phillips, James C., Ortner, Daniel M., and Lee, Thomas R.. “Corpus Linguistics and Original Public Meaning: A New Tool to Make Originalism More Empirical.” Yale Law Journal Forum 126, 101 (May 2016): 21–32.Google Scholar
Phillips, James Cleith and White, Sara. “The Meaning of the Three Emoluments Clauses in the U.S. Constitution: A Corpus Linguistic Analysis of American English from 1760–1799.” South Texas Law Review 59, 2 (Winter 2017): 181–236.Google Scholar
Pocock, J. G. A. Political Thought and History: Essays on Theory and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Pojanowski, Jeffrey A. and Walsh, Kevin C.. “Enduring Originalism.” Georgetown Law Journal 105, 1 (November 2016): 97–158.Google Scholar
Pojanowski, Jeffrey A. “Reading Statutes in the Common Law Tradition.” Virginia Law Review 101, 5 (September 2015): 1357–424.Google Scholar
Popkin, William D. Materials on Legislation: Political Language and the Political Process. 3rd ed. New York: Foundation Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Popkin, William D. Statutes in Court: The History and Theory of Statutory Interpretation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. “Law School Professors Need More Practical Experience: Entry 9; The Academy Is out of Its Depth.” The Breakfast Table (blog), Slate, posted June 24, 2016, https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/06/law-school-professors-need-more-practical-experience.html.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. How Judges Think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Post, Robert and Siegel, Reva. “Originalism as a Political Practice: The Right’s Living Constitution.” Fordham Law Review 75, 2 (November 2006): 545–74.Google Scholar
PotterJr., Parker B. “If Humpty Dumpty Had Sat on the Bench … : An Eggheaded Approach to Legal Lexicography.” Whittier Law Review 30, 3 (2009): 367–532.Google Scholar
PotterJr., Parker B. “Wondering about Alice: Judicial References to Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass.” Whittier Law Review 28, 1 (2006): 175–318.Google Scholar
Powell, H. Jefferson. “The Original Understanding of Original Intent.” Harvard Law Review 98, 5 (March 1985): 885–948.Google Scholar
Radin, Max. “Statutory Interpretation.” Harvard Law Review 43, 6 (April 1930): 863–85.Google Scholar
Rakove, Jack N. “Joe the Ploughman Reads the Constitution: Or, the Poverty of Public Meaning Originalism.” San Diego Law Review 48, 2 (May–June 2011): 575–600.Google Scholar
Rakove, Jack N. “Confessions of an Ambivalent Originalist.” New York University Law Review 78, 4 (October 2003): 1346–56.Google Scholar
Ramsey, Michael D. “Beyond the Text: Justice Scalia’s Originalism in Practice.” Notre Dame Law Review 92, 5 (2017): 1945–76.Google Scholar
Rawle, William. A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Philadelphia, 1829.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. Between Authority and Interpretation: On the Theory of Law and Practical Reason. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. “Intention in Interpretation.” Chap. 9 in The Autonomy of Law: Essays on Legal Positivism, ed. George, Robert P.. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Rehnquist, William H. “The Notion of a Living Constitution.” Texas Law Review 54, 4 (May 1976): 693–706.Google Scholar
Robertson, William. The History of the Reign of Charles the Fifth, Emperor of Germany and of All the Kingdoms and States in Europe, During His Age: To Which Is Prefixed, a View of the Progress of Society in Europe, from the Subversion of the Roman Empire, to the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century: Confirmed by Historical Proofs and Illustration: In Three Volumes. Vol. 1. Philadelphia, 1770.Google Scholar
Roosevelt, Franklin D. “Fireside Chat: On the Reorganization of the Judiciary,” March 9, 1937. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. The American Presidency Project, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/fireside-chat-17.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald N. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change? 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, Michel. “Constitutional Adjudication in Europe and the United States: Paradoxes and Contrasts.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 2, 4 (October 2004): 633–68.Google Scholar
Rossum, Ralph A. Understanding Clarence Thomas: The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Restoration. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2014.Google Scholar
Rubin, Edward L. and Feeley, Malcolm M.. “Judicial Policy Making and Litigation against the Government.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 5, 3 (2003): 617–64.Google Scholar
Rubin, Peter J. “Taking Its Proper Place in the Constitutional Canon: Bolling v. Sharpe, Korematsu, and the Equal Protection Component of Fifth Amendment Due Process.” Virginia Law Review 92, 8 (December 2006): 1879–98.Google Scholar
Rutledge, Wiley. To Ernest Kirschten, February 20, 1947. Wiley Rutledge Papers, Box 143.Google Scholar
Sales, Philip. “Pepper v Hart: A Footnote to Professor Vogenauer’s Reply to Lord Steyn.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26, 3 (Autumn 2006): 585–92.Google Scholar
Sawyer, III, Logan, E. “Principle and Politics in the New History of Originalism.” American Journal of Legal History 57, 2 (June 2017): 198–222.Google Scholar
Scalia, Antonin. A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Scalia, Antonin. “Judicial Deference to Administrative Interpretations of Law.” Duke Law Journal, 3 (June 1989): 511–21.Google Scholar
Scalia, Antonin and Garner, Bryan A.. Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West, 2012.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick. Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision-Making in Law and in Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Scheppele, Kim Lane. “Jack Balkin Is an American.” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 25, 1 (Winter 2013): 23–42.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Bernard. The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History. New York: Chelsea House, 1971.Google Scholar
Schwartzman, Micah. “Judicial Sincerity.” Virginia Law Review 94, 4 (2008): 987–1027.Google Scholar
Scutt, Jocelynne A. Women and Magna Carta: A Treaty for Rights or Wrongs? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.Google Scholar
Segall, Eric J. “Originalism as Faith.” Cornell Law Review Online 102 (2016): 37–52.Google Scholar
Shapiro, David L. “In Defense of Judicial Candor.” Harvard Law Review 100, 4 (February 1987): 731–50.Google Scholar
Siltala, Raimo. Law, Truth, and Reason: A Treatise on Legal Argumentation. New York: Springer, 2011.Google Scholar
SiricoJr., Louis J. “Original Intent in the First Congress.” Missouri Law Review 71, 3 (Summer 2006): 687–720.Google Scholar
Sirota, Léonid and Oliphant, Benjamin. “Originalist Reasoning in Canadian Constitutional Jurisprudence.” University of British Columbia Law Review 50, 2 (2017): 505–76.Google Scholar
Sloan, Herbert. “‘The Earth Belongs in Usufruct to the Living.’” In Jeffersonian Legacies, ed. Onuf, Peter S.. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993, pp. 281–315.Google Scholar
Slocum, Brian G., ed. The Nature of Legal Interpretation: What Jurists Can Learn about Legal Interpretation from Linguistics and Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, ed. Cannan, Edwin. London: Methuen, 1904.Google Scholar
Smith, Stephen D. “That Old-Time Originalism.” Chap. 10 in The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation, eds. Huscroft, Grant and Miller, Bradley W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven D. “The Jurisdictional Establishment Clause: A Reappraisal.” Notre Dame Law Review 81, 5 (2006): 1843–94.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven D. Law’s Quandary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven D. Foreordained Failure: The Quest for a Constitutional Principle of Religious Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Smith, II, George, P. “Marbury v. Madison, Lord Coke and Dr. Bonham: Relics of the Past, Guidelines for the Present; Judicial Review in Transition?” University of Puget Sound Law Review 2 (1979): 255–68.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence M. “Legal Linguistics in the US: Looking Back, Looking Ahead.” Legal Studies Paper, No. 609, Brooklyn Law School, July 2019, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3428489.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence M. “Can Corpus Linguistics Help Make Originalism Scientific?” Yale Law Journal Forum 126, 101 (May 2016): 57–64.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence M. and Gales, Tammy. “Corpus Linguistics as a Tool in Legal Interpretation.” Brigham Young University Law Review, 6 (2017): 1311–57.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence B. “Originalism versus Living Constitutionalism: The Conceptual Structure of the Great Debate.” Northwestern University Law Review 113, 6 (2019): 1243–96.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence B. “Originalist Methodology.” University of Chicago Law Review 84, 1 (2017): 269–96.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence B. “Triangulating Public Meaning: Corpus Linguistics, Immersion, and the Constitutional Record,” Brigham Young University Law Review, 6 (2017): 1621–82.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence B. “We Are All Originalists Now.” Chap. 1 in Constitutional Originalism: A Debate, eds. Solum, Lawrence B. and Bennett, Robert W.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence B. “What Is Originalism? The Evolution of Contemporary Originalist Theory.” Chap. 1 in The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation, eds. Huscroft, Grant and Miller, Bradley W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence B. “The Interpretation–Construction Distinction.” Constitutional Commentary 27, 1 (2010): 95–118.Google Scholar
Starr, Kenneth W. “Observations about the Use of Legislative History.” Duke Law Journal 36, 3 (June 1987): 371–9.Google Scholar
Stead, William T. “My First Visit to America: An Open Letter to My Readers.” Review of Reviews, March 10, 1894.Google Scholar
Stein, Peter. Roman Law in European History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Stein, Peter. “Interpretation and Legal Reasoning in Roman Law.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 70, 4 (1995): 1539–56.Google Scholar
Steinberg, David E. “The Original Understanding of Unreasonable Searches and Seizures.” Florida Law Review 56, 5 (December 2004): 1051–96.Google Scholar
Stewart, David O. The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007.Google Scholar
Steyn, Johan. “Pepper v Hart; A Re-examination.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 21, 1 (Spring 2001): 59–72.Google Scholar
Storing, Herbert J., ed. The Complete Anti-Federalist. Vol. 2, Objections of Non-Signers of the Constitution and Major Series of Essays at the Outset. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States: With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States, before the Adoption of the Constitution. 2nd ed. Boston, 1851.Google Scholar
Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States: With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States, before the Adoption of the Constitution. Boston, 1833.Google Scholar
Strang, Lee J. Originalism’s Promise: A Natural Law Account of the American Constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.Google Scholar
Strang, Lee J. “How Big Data Can Increase Originalism’s Methodological Rigor: Using Corpus Linguistics to Reveal Original Language Conventions.” UC Davis Law Review 50, 3 (February 2017): 1181–242.Google Scholar
Strang, Lee J. “The Original Meaning of ‘Religion’ in the First Amendment: A Test Case of Originalism’s Utilization of Corpus Linguistics.” Brigham Young University Law Review, 6 (2017): 1683–750.Google Scholar
Strauss, David A. “The Supreme Court 2014 Term: Foreword; Does the Constitution Mean What It Says.” Harvard Law Review 129, 1 (November 2015): 1–61.Google Scholar
Strauss, David A. The Living Constitution. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. “There Is Nothing that Interpretation Just Is.” Constitutional Commentary 30, 2 (2015): 193–212.Google Scholar
Tamanaha, Brian Z. Law as a Means to an End: Threat to the Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Tankersley, Daniel C. “Beyond the Dictionary: Why Sua Sponte Judicial Use of Corpus Linguistics Is Not Appropriate for Statutory Interpretation.” SSRN, February 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3117223.Google Scholar
Taylor, John. An Argument Respecting the Constitutionality of the Carriage Tax; Which Subject was Discussed at Richmond, in Virginia, in May, 1759. Richmond: Augustine Davis, 1795.Google Scholar
Teles, Steven M. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E. Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Tew, Yvonne. “Originalism at Home and Abroad.” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 52, 3 (2014): 780–895.Google Scholar
Thayer, James B. “The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law.” Harvard Law Review 7, 3 (October 1893): 129–56.Google Scholar
Thorne, Samuel E., ed. A Discourse upon the Exposicion and Understandinge of Statutes: With Sir Thomas Egerton’s Additions. San Marino, CA: Huntington Library, 1942.Google Scholar
Thumma, Samuel A. and Kirchmeier, Jeffrey L., “The Lexicon Has Become a Fortress: The United States Supreme Court’s Use of Dictionaries,” Buffalo Law Review 47 (1999): 227–302.Google Scholar
Tinling, Marion. “Thomas Lloyd’s Reports of the First Federal Congress.” William and Mary Quarterly 18, 4 (October 1961): 519–45.Google Scholar
Toobin, Jeffrey. “How Scalia Changed the Supreme Court.” New Yorker, February 13, 2016, www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-scalia-changed-the-supreme-court.Google Scholar
Trumbull, Benjamin. “Act of Assembly Adopting the Saybrook Platform, Oct. 1708.” In A Complete History of Connecticut: Civil and Ecclesiastical, from the Emigration of its first Planters from England, in the Year 1630, to the Year 1764, and to the Close of the Indian Wars, in Two Volumes. New Haven, CT: Maltby, Goldsmith & Co., 1818.Google Scholar
Tucker, St. George, ed. Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference, to the Constitution and Laws, of the Federal Government of the United States; and of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Philadelphia, 1803.Google Scholar
Tushnet, Mark. “The Dilemmas of Liberal Constitutionalism.” Ohio State Law Journal 42, 1 (1981): 411–26.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy. Original Meaning Jurisprudence: A Sourcebook. Washington, DC: Government Publishing Office, 1988.Google Scholar
Uzzell, Lynn. Redeeming Madison’s Notes. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
VanBurkleo, Sandra Frances. “‘Honour, Justice, and Interest’: John Jay’s Republican Politics and Statesmanship on the Federal Bench.” In Seriatim: The Supreme Court before John Marshall, ed. Gerber, Scott Douglas. New York: New York University Press, 1998, pp. 26–69.Google Scholar
Van der Sloot, Bart. “The Practical and Theoretical Problems with ‘Balancing’: Delfi, Coty and the Redundancy of the Human Rights Framework.” Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 23, 3 (2016): 439–59.Google Scholar
Varol, Ozan O. “The Origins and Limits of Originalism: A Comparative Study.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 44, 5 (2011): 1239–98.Google Scholar
Vermeule, Adrian. The Constitution of Risk. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Vermeule, Adrian. Law and the Limits of Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Vogenauer, Stefan. “A Retreat from Pepper v Hart? A Reply to Lord Steyn.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 25, 4 (Winter 2005): 629–74.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. “The Rule of Law.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Article published June 22, 2016, last modified July 1, 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rule-of-law/.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. “Judicial Review and Judicial Supremacy.” NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper, No. 14–57 (October 2014). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2510550.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. The Dignity of Legislation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Webster, Noah. An American Dictionary of the English Language. 1st ed. New York, 1828.Google Scholar
Webster’s New Dictionary of the English Language: Revised and Updated. New York, Popular Pub, 2002.Google Scholar
Weir, David A. Early New England: A Covenanted Society. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005.Google Scholar
Weis, Lael K. “What Comparativism Tells Us about Originalism.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 11, 4 (October 2013): 842–69.Google Scholar
Whitney, Edward B. “The Income Tax and the Constitution.” Harvard Law Review 20, 4 (February 1907): 280–96.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. Repugnant Laws: Judicial Review of Acts of Congress from the Founding to the Present. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2019.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. “Is Originalism Too Conservative?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, 1 (Winter 2011): 29–41.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. “The New Originalism.” Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 2, 2 (Summer 2004): 599–614.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. Constitutional Construction: Divided Powers and Constitutional Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999.Google Scholar
Williams, Daniel K. Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement before Roe v. Wade. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Wilson, James. “Of the Study of the Law in the United States.” In The Works of James Wilson, ed. McCloskey, Robert Green. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Wilson, John F. and Drakeman, Donald L., eds. Church and State in American History: Key Documents, Decisions, and Commentary from Five Centuries. 4th ed. New York: Routledge, 2020.Google Scholar
WitteJr., John. God’s Joust, God’s Justice: Law and Religion in the Western Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006.Google Scholar
WitteJr., John. “‘A Most Mild and Equitable Establishment of Religion’: John Adams and the Massachusetts Experiment.” Journal of Church and State 41, 2 (Spring 1999): 213–52.Google Scholar
Worcester, Joseph E. Dictionary of the English Language. Boston, 1860.Google Scholar
Wurman, Ilan. A Debt against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Yodelis, Mary Ann. “Who Paid the Piper? Publishing Economics in Boston, 1763–1775.” Journalism Monographs 38 (February 1975): 6–54.Google Scholar
Yowell, Paul. Constitutional Rights and Constitutional Design: Moral and Empirical Reasoning in Judicial Review. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2018.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Jonathan. Whose America? Culture Wars in the Public Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Zines, Leslie. “Dead Hands or Living Tree? Stability and Change in Constitutional Law.” Adelaide Law Review 25, 1 (2004): 3–20.Google Scholar
ZoBell, Karl M. “Division of Opinion in the Supreme Court: A History of Judicial Disintegration.” Cornell Law Quarterly 44 (1958–1959): 186–214.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Donald L. Drakeman, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
  • Book: The Hollow Core of Constitutional Theory
  • Online publication: 26 January 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108751001.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Donald L. Drakeman, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
  • Book: The Hollow Core of Constitutional Theory
  • Online publication: 26 January 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108751001.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Donald L. Drakeman, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
  • Book: The Hollow Core of Constitutional Theory
  • Online publication: 26 January 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108751001.012
Available formats
×