<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
  <record>
    <leader>00000nam  2200000   4500</leader>
    <controlfield tag="001">INLIS000000000010408</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="005">20221102024910</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="035" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">0010-0122000142</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <controlfield tag="007">ta</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="008">221102################g##########0#eng##</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="020" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">978-0-19-532858-5</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="082" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">342.73</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="084" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">342.73 BAR c</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">Barber, Sotirios A</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">Constitutional Interpretation :</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">The Basic Questions /</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">Sotirios A. Barber and James E. Fleming</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="260" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">United States of America :</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">Oxford University Press,</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">2007</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="300" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">xvi, 201 p. ;</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">23 cm</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1="#" ind2="4">
      <subfield code="a">Constitutional law</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">James E. Fleming</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="520" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">Ronald Dworkin famously argued that fidelity in interpreting the Constitution as written calls for a fusion of constitutional law and moral philosophy. Barber and Fleming take up that call, arguing for a philosophic approach to constitutional interpretation. In doing so, they systematically&#13;
critique the competing approaches - textualism, consensualism, originalism, structuralism, doctrinalism, minimalism, and pragmatism - that aim and claim to avoid a philosophic approach. Constitutional Interpretation: The Basic Questions illustrates that these approaches cannot avoid philosophic&#13;
reflection and choice in interpreting the Constitution. Barber and Fleming contend that fidelity in constitutional interpretation requires a fusion of philosophic and other approaches, properly understood. Within such a fusion, interpreters would begin to think of text, consensus, intentions,&#13;
structures, and doctrines not as alternatives to, but as sites of philosophic reflection about the best understanding of our constitutional commitments. Constitutional Interpretation: The Basic Questions, examines the fundamental inquiries that arise in interpreting constitutional law. In doing so,&#13;
the authors survey the controversial and intriguing questions that have stirred constitutional debate in the United States for over two centuries, such as: how and for what ends should governmental institutions and powers be arranged; what does the Constitution mean under general circumstances and&#13;
how should it be interpreted during concrete controversies; and finally how do we decide what our constitution means and who ultimately decides its meaning.</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="651" ind1="#" ind2="4">
      <subfield code="a">United States</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="990" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">26741/MKRI-P/XII-2021</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="990" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">26741/MKRI-P/XII-2021</subfield>
    </datafield>
  </record>
</collection>
