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