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.
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 .
To save content items 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.
The Epilogue offers two different venues where the influence of claims to be able to avoid all tradition to arrive at truer readings are seen in modern society in the United States of America. These two are biblical literalism and constitutional originalism. The study examines a number of cases, both exegetical and legal. In each case, the rules for reading “correctly” and only according to the text are shown to be instead part of a complex reading tradition that foregrounds certain facets of the text while ignoring others. The argument is not that biblical literalists or constitutional originalists are wrong in their conclusions. Instead, the evidence demonstrates that the hermeneutical high ground that claims only to read the text with no further rules, traditions, or caveats – does not exist.
The overriding reason that Progressives were so often dismissive of rights claims and arguments is that they wanted to create a national democracy and they saw a rigid adherence to the prevailing norms of the U.S. The liberal establishment increasingly justified its rule in non-ideological terms by appealing to purportedly objective and value-free procedures and practices. The democratic left charged that the liberal establishment excluded many important groups and interests in policy-making. Beginning in the 1970s, deregulation was pursued by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Originalism as a constitutional hermeneutic serves better as a critique of an entrenched judicial and congressional liberalism than as a guide to conservative governance. The constitutional originalism provides a source for a public philosophy of sufficient prestige and power to become a basis for a reconstituted public and the restoration of popular sovereignty.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.