Pokaż uproszczony rekord

dc.contributor.authorTomza, Anna
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-20T07:25:03Z
dc.date.available2022-09-20T07:25:03Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationTomza A., Jurysprudencja 7. Spór o poprawną interpretację Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych. Od pasywizmu do aktywizmu sądowego, Łódź 2016, https://doi.org/10.18778/8088-006-1pl_PL
dc.identifier.isbn978-83-8088-006-1
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/43280
dc.descriptionZagadnienie poprawnej interpretacji Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych nie tylko było zawsze przedmiotem sporu amerykańskiej i europejskiej nauki prawa, lecz także angażowało szeroko pojętą opinię publiczną. W książce przedstawiono najbardziej znaczące i powszechnie akceptowane poglądy teoretyków i praktyków amerykańskiej jurysprudencji, których przegląd prowadzi czytelników „od pasywizmu do aktywizmu sądowego”. Uwzględniono szczególnie tekstualizm wywodzący się z koncepcji powszechnego znaczenia (plain meaning), sformułowanej przez Oliviera W. Holmesa oraz oryginalizm, który skupia się – jak podkreśla Antoni G. Scalia – na poszukiwaniu koncepcji znaczenia ,,znaczenia” (meaning of meaning), a w szczególności oryginalnego znaczenia (original meaning). Specjalne miejsce zajmuje trójelementowa teoria interpretacji Konstytucji, zwana oryginalizmem semantycznym, promowana przez Lawrence’a Soluma. Licznych zwolenników ma także intencjonalizm, zbudowany na kanwie tez Stanleya Fisha, w myśl których idealnym rozstrzygnięciem sporu o interpretację jest koncepcja intencyjnego znaczenia (intention meaning). Całość zamykają ustalenia pojęciowe związane z enigmatycznym terminu, jakim jest aktywizm sądowy (judicial activism), stanowiące po części odpowiedź na pytanie o jego właściwą charakterystykę.pl_PL
dc.description.sponsorshipUdostępnienie publikacji Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego finansowane w ramach projektu „Doskonałość naukowa kluczem do doskonałości kształcenia”. Projekt realizowany jest ze środków Europejskiego Funduszu Społecznego w ramach Programu Operacyjnego Wiedza Edukacja Rozwój; nr umowy: POWER.03.05.00-00-Z092/17-00.pl_PL
dc.language.isoplpl_PL
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl_PL
dc.relation.ispartofseriesJurysprudencja;7
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Międzynarodowe*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectKonstytucja Stanów Zjednoczonychpl_PL
dc.subjectaktywizm sądowypl_PL
dc.subjecttekstualizmpl_PL
dc.subjectformalizmpl_PL
dc.subjectintencjonalizmpl_PL
dc.subjectfilozofia prawapl_PL
dc.titleSpór o poprawną interpretację Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych. Od pasywizmu do aktywizmu sądowegopl_PL
dc.typeBookpl_PL
dc.rights.holder© Copyright by Authors, Łódź 2016; © Copyright for this edition by Uniwersytet Łódzki, Łódź 2016pl_PL
dc.page.number138pl_PL
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationUniwersytet Łódzki, Wydział Prawa i Administracji, Katedra Teorii i Filozofii Prawa, 90-232 Łódź, ul. Kopcińskiego 8/12pl_PL
dc.identifier.eisbn978-83-8088-007-8
dc.referencesAbraham, Kenneth S. 1979. “Statutory Interpretation and Literary Theory: Some Common Concerns of an Unlikely Pair.” Rutgers Law Review 32: 676–694.pl_PL
dc.referencesAitken, Robert, Marilyn Aitken. 2007. Law Makers. Law Breakers. and Uncommon Trials. Chicago: American Bar Association.pl_PL
dc.referencesBaker, Lynn A. 2005. “Lochner’s Legacy for Modern Federalism: Pierce County v. Guillen As A Case Study.” Boston University Law Review 85: 727–764.pl_PL
dc.referencesBalkin, Jack M. 2009. “Framework Originalism and the Living Constitution.” Northwestern University Law Review 103: 549–614.pl_PL
dc.referencesBanaszak, Bogusław. 2009. „Aktywizm orzeczniczy Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i pojęcie aktywizmu orzeczniczego Sądu Najwyższego czy Sądu Konstytucyjnego. jego zalety i wady”. Przegląd Sejmowy 17.4: 75–91.pl_PL
dc.referencesBanaszak, Bogusław, Michał Bernarczyk. 2012. Aktywizm sędziowski we współczesnym państwie demokratycznym. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe.pl_PL
dc.referencesBarak, Aharon. 2004. Purposive Interpretation in Law. Princeton–Oxford: Princeton University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBarnett, Randy E. 1999. “An Originalism for Nonoriginalists.” Loyola Law Review 45: 611–654.pl_PL
dc.referencesBarnett, Randy E. 2001. “The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause.” University of Chicago Law Review 68: 101–147.pl_PL
dc.referencesBarnett, Randy E. 2002. “Is the Rehnquist Court an Activist Court? The Commerce Clause Cases.” University of Colorado Law Review 73: 1275–1290.pl_PL
dc.referencesBarnett, Randy E. 2004. “The Original Meaning of The Judicial Power.” Boston University School of Law. Working Paper Series. Public Law & Legal Theory 03-18: 1–22.pl_PL
dc.referencesBarnett, Randy E. 2006. “Scalia’s Infidelity. A Critique of Faint-Hearted Originalism.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 75: 7–24.pl_PL
dc.referencesBarnett, Randy E. 2013. Restoring the Lost Constitution. The Presumption of Liberty. Princeton – Oxford: Princeton University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBeard, Charles A. 1912. Documents on the State-wide Initiative. Referendum and Recall. New York: The Macmillan Company.pl_PL
dc.referencesBennett, Robert. 2008. “Originalism: Lessons From Things That Go Without Saying.” Northwestern University School of Law Public and Legal Theory Series 08, 39: 1–35.pl_PL
dc.referencesBerger, Raoul. 1977. Government by Judiciary. The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBibas, Stephanos. 2001. “Two Cheers. Not Three. For Sixth Amendment Originalism.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 34.1: 45–52.pl_PL
dc.referencesBibas, Stephanos. 2005. “Originalism and Formalism in Criminal Procedure: The Triumph of Justice Scalia, the Unlikely Friend of Criminal Defendants?” Scholarship at Penn Law University of Pennsylvania Law School 7.29: 183–204.pl_PL
dc.referencesBiernat, Tadeusz, Marek Zirk-Sadowski, eds. 2008. Politics of Law and Legal Policy. Between Modern and Post-Modern Jurisprudence. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.pl_PL
dc.referencesBishop, Joel P. 1882. Commentaries on the Written Laws and Their Interpretation. Boston: Little. Brown & Co.pl_PL
dc.referencesBlack, Hugo L. 1968. A Constitutional Faith. New York: Knopf.pl_PL
dc.referencesBlackstone, William. 1776. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBlair, George S. 1967. American Legislatures. Structure and Process. Evanston: Harper & Row.pl_PL
dc.referencesBobbitt, Philip. 1982. Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution. New York: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBojańczyk, Antoni. 2006. „Glosa do wyroku TK z dnia 24 lipca 2006 r. (sygn. akt SK 58/03)”. Przegląd Sejmowy 77.6: 150–163.pl_PL
dc.referencesBoorstin, Daniel. 1996. The Mysterious Science of the Law. An Essay on Blackstone’s Commentaries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBork, Robert H. 1971. “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems.” Indiana Law Journal 47: 1–35.pl_PL
dc.referencesBork, Robert H. 1985. “Styles in Constitutional Theory.” South Texas Law Review 26: 223–236.pl_PL
dc.referencesBork, Robert H. 1986. “The Constitution. Original Intent, and Economic Rights.” San Diego Law Review 23: 823–832.pl_PL
dc.referencesBork, Robert H. 1990. The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of The Law. New York: Free Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBowden, Thomas A. 2009. “Justice Holmes and the Empty Constitution. The Objective Standard.” A Journal of Culture and Politics 4.2: 21–46.pl_PL
dc.referencesBowen, Catherine. 1966. Miracle at Philadelphia. The Story of the Constitutional Convention. May to September 1787. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.pl_PL
dc.referencesBoyd, Julian P., ed. 1955. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Princeton University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBreen, John M. 2000. “Statutory Interpretation and The Lesson Llewellyn.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 33: 263–448.pl_PL
dc.referencesBrennan, William J., Jr. 1986. “The Constitution of the United States: Contemporary Ratification.” South Texas Law Review 433: 1–16.pl_PL
dc.referencesBrest, Paul. 1980. “Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding.” Boston University Law Review 60: 204–238.pl_PL
dc.referencesBryce, James. 1893. The American Commonwealth. New York–London: Macmillan.pl_PL
dc.referencesCalabresi, Steven G. 1982. A Common Law for the Age of Statutes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesCalabresi, Steven G. 2004. “The Congressional Roots of Judicial Activism.” The Journal of Law & Politics 20: 1287–1316.pl_PL
dc.referencesCalabresi, Steven G. 2005a. “The Originalist and Normative Case Against Judicial Activism: A Reply to Professor Barnett.” Michigan Law Review 103: 1081–1098.pl_PL
dc.referencesCalabresi, Steven G. 2005b. “The Tradition of The Written Constitution: Text. Precedent and Burke.” Northwestern University Law Review 6: 1–68.pl_PL
dc.referencesCalabresi, Steven G. 2007b. “Text vs Precedent in Constitutional Law”. In Originalism A Quarter-Century of Debate, ed. Steven G. Calabresi, 199–210. Washington: Regnery Publishing.pl_PL
dc.referencesCalabresi, Steven G., Saikrishna B. Prakash. 1994. “The President’s Power to Execute the Law.” Yale Law Journal 104: 1–5.pl_PL
dc.referencesCasto, William R. 2006. Foreign Affairs and the Constitution in the Age of Fighting Sail. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesColby, Thomas B., Peter J. Smith. 2009. “Living Originalism.” Duke Law Journal 59: 239–307.pl_PL
dc.referencesCornell, Saul. 2007. “The Original Meaning of Original Understanding: A Neo-blackstonian Critique.” Maryland Law Review 67: 150–165.pl_PL
dc.referencesCorwin, Edward S. 1914. “Marbury v. Madison and the Doctrine of Judicial Review”. In The Doctrine of Judicial Review. Its Legal and Historical Basis and other Essays. 1–81. Gloucester: P. Smith.pl_PL
dc.referencesCross, Frank B. 1997. “Political Science and the New Legal Realism: A Case of Unfortunate Interdisciplinary Ignorance.” Northwestern University Law Review 92: 251–326.pl_PL
dc.referencesCurrie, David P. 1990. The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second Century. 1888–1986, Vol. 2. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesCzepita, Stanisław. 1996. Reguły konstytutywne a zagadnienia prawoznawstwa. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego.pl_PL
dc.referencesDallas, Alexander D., ed. 1905. Reports of Cases Ruled and Adjudged in the Several Courts of the United States and of Pennsylvania Held at the Seat of the Federal Government, Vol. 3. New York: Banks Law Publishing.pl_PL
dc.referencesDaszyńska, Jolanta A., red. 2009. Konstytucja Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki. Reminiscencje w 220 rocznicę uchwalenia. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.pl_PL
dc.referencesDevitt, Michael. 1981. Designation. New York: Columbia University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDrake, Frederick D., Lynn R. Nelson. 1999. State’s Rights and American Federalism: A Documentary History. London: Greenwood Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDurchslag, Melvyn R. 2002. State Sovereign Immunity. A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Westport: Praeger.pl_PL
dc.referencesDuxbury, Neil. 1997. Patterns of American Jurisprudence. Contributors. Oxford: Clarendon Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s Empire. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDworkin, Ronald. 1996. Freedom’s Law. The Moral Reading of The American Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDworkin, Ronald. 2006. Justice in Robes. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesEasterbrook, Frank H. 1984–1985. “The Supreme Court, 1983 Term-Foreword: The Court and the Economic System.” Harvard Law Review 98.4: 4–60.pl_PL
dc.referencesEasterbrook, Frank H. 1994. “Text. History and Structure in Statutory Interpretation.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 17: 61–70.pl_PL
dc.referencesEasterbrook, Frank H. 2002. “Do Liberals and Conservatives Differ In Judicial Activism.” Colorado Law Review 73: 1401–1416.pl_PL
dc.referencesEisgruber, Christopher L. 2001. Constitutional Self-Government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesEngdahlt, David E. 1992–1993. “John Marshall ‘Jeffersonian’ Concept of Judicial Review.” Duke Law Journal 42: 279–339.pl_PL
dc.referencesEskridge, William N., Jr. 1987. “Dynamic Statutory Interpretation.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 135: 1479–1555.pl_PL
dc.referencesEskridge, William N., Jr. 1991. “The New Textualism”. University of California Law Review 37: 621–691.pl_PL
dc.referencesEpstein, Richard A. 1995–1996. “Constitutional Faith and the Commerce Clause.” Notre Dame Law Review 71: 169–193.pl_PL
dc.referencesEskridge, William N., Jr., Philip P. Frickey. 1993. “The Making of the Legal Process.” Harvard Law Review 107: 2031–2055.pl_PL
dc.referencesFallon, Richard H., Jr. 1987. “A Constructivist Coherence Theory of Constitutional Interpretation.” Harvard Law Review 100: 1189–1286.pl_PL
dc.referencesFallon, Richard H., Jr. 2002. “The ‘Conservative’ Paths of the Rehnquist Court’s Federalism Decisions.” University of Chicago Law Review 69: 429–494.pl_PL
dc.referencesFilipowicz, Stanisław. 1997. Pochwała rozumu i cnoty. Republikańskie credo Ameryki. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Znak.pl_PL
dc.referencesFilkeman, Paul. 1996. “Intentionalism. The Founders and Constitutional Interpretation.” Texas Law Review 75: 435–481.pl_PL
dc.referencesFish, Stanley. 2005. “There Is No Textualism Position.” San Diego Law Review 42: 1–22.pl_PL
dc.referencesFish, Stanley. 2008. Interpretacja, retoryka, polityka. Kraków: Universitas.pl_PL
dc.referencesFisher, Louis. 1972. President and Congress, Power and Policy. New York–London: Free Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesFitzpatrick, John C., ed. 1939. The Writings of George Washington, Vol. 30. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.pl_PL
dc.referencesFrankfurter, Felix. 1947. “Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes.” 381–385. Columbia Law Review 47.pl_PL
dc.referencesFreund, Paul A. 1968. On Law and Justice. Cambridge: Balknap Press of Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesFreund, Paul A. 1987–1988. “Essays on the Supreme Court Appointment Process: Appointment of Justice: Some Historical Perspectives.” Harvard Law Review 101: 1146–1163.pl_PL
dc.referencesFriedenthal, Jack H., Joshua E. Gardner. 2004. “Judicial Discretion to Deny Summary Judgment in The Era of Managerial Judging.” Hofstra Law Review 31: 91–132.pl_PL
dc.referencesFriedman, Lawrence M. 1985. A History of American Law. New York: Simon and Schuster.pl_PL
dc.referencesGalligan, Denis, Marcin Matczak. 2005. Strategie orzekania sądowego. O wykonywaniu władzy dyskrecjonalnej przez sędziów sądów administracyjnych w sprawach gospodarczych i podatkowych. Warszawa: Sprawne Państwo. Program Ernst & Young.pl_PL
dc.referencesGarlicki, Lech. 1982. Sąd Najwyższy Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki: konstytucja – polityka – prawa obywatelskie. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.pl_PL
dc.referencesGedicks, Frederick M. 2009. “An Originalist Defense of Substantive Due Process: Magna Carta, Higher-Law Constitutionalism, and the Fifth Amendment.” Emory Law Journal 58: 585–674.pl_PL
dc.referencesGerhardt, Michael J. 1994. “A Tale of Two Textualists: A Critical Comparison of Justices Black and Scalia.” College of William & Mary Law School. Scholarship Repository. Faculty Scholarship Publications 990: 25–66.pl_PL
dc.referencesGilson, Etienne. 1975. Lingwistyka a filozofia. Rozważania o stałych filozoficznych języka. Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy PAX.pl_PL
dc.referencesGizbert-Studnicki, Tomasz. 1978. Wieloznaczność leksykalna w interpretacji prawniczej. Rozprawy habilitacyjne nr 17. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.pl_PL
dc.referencesGoldford, Dennis J. 2005. The American Constitution and the Debate Over Originalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGórski, Grzegorz. 2006. Sąd Najwyższy Stanów Zjednoczonych do roku 1930. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.pl_PL
dc.referencesGreen, Craig. 2009. “Intellectual History of Judicial Activism.” E mory L aw J ournal 58.5: 1195–1263.pl_PL
dc.referencesGreen, Jamal. 2009a. “On the Origins of Originalism.” Columbia Law Review 3.9: 1–78.pl_PL
dc.referencesGreen, Jamal. 2009b. “Selling Originalism.” The Georgetown Law Journal 97: 658–721.pl_PL
dc.referencesGreenawalt, Kent. 1997. “The Nature of Rules and the Meaning of Meaning.” Notre Dame Law Review 72: 1449–1477.pl_PL
dc.referencesGreenberg, Mark D., Harry Litman. 2009. “The Meaning of Original Meaning.” Georgia Law Journal 86: 570–619.pl_PL
dc.referencesGreene, Abner S. 2006. “The Missing Step of Textualism.” Fordham Law Review 74: 1913–1936.pl_PL
dc.referencesGrey, Thomas C. 1999. “The New Formalism.” Stanford Law School Working Papers 4: 1–30.pl_PL
dc.referencesGrice, Paul. 1991. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGwyn, William B. 1965. The Meaning of The Separation of Powers. An Analysis of the Doctrine From Its Origin to the Adoption of the United States Constitution. New Orleans–The Hague: Tulane University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesHaines, Charles G. 1944. The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government and Politics. 1789–1835. Berkeley–Los Angeles: University of California Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesHall, Kermit L., William M. Wiecek, Paul Finkelman. 1991. American Legal History. Cases and Material. New York: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesHamowy, Ronald. 2008. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.pl_PL
dc.referencesHart, Henry, Jr., Albert Sacks. 1994. The Legal Process: Basic Problems In The Making and Application of Law. Westbury: Foundation Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesHart, Herbert L. A. 1965. “Book Review The Morality of Law by L. L. Fuller.” Harvard Law Review 78: 1281–1296.pl_PL
dc.referencesHart, Herbert L. A. 1977. “American Jurisprudence Through English Eyes. The Nightmare and The Noble Dream.” Georgia Law Review 11: 969–990.pl_PL
dc.referencesHirschl, Ran. 2006. “The New Constitutionalism and the Judicialization of Pure Politics Worldwide.” Fordham Law Review 75: 721–754.pl_PL
dc.referencesHofstadter, Richard. 1955. The American Political Tradition and the Man Who Made It. New York: Vintage Books.pl_PL
dc.referencesHohfeld, Wesley N. 1923. Fundamental Conceptions. New Haven: Yale University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesHolland, Kenneth M., ed. 1991. Judicial Activism in Comparative Perspective. London: Macmillan.pl_PL
dc.referencesHolmes, Oliver W. 1899. “The Theory of Legal Interpretation.” Harvard Law Review 12.6: 417–420.pl_PL
dc.referencesHolmes, Oliver W. 2005. The Common Law. New York: Lawbook Exchange Clark.pl_PL
dc.referencesHook, Sidney, ed. 1964. Law and Philosophy: A Symposium. New York: New York University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesHughes, Diane L. 1995. “Justice Stevens’s Method of Statutory Interpretation: A Well-Tailored Means for Facilitating Environmental Regulation.” Harvard Environmental Law Review 19: 493–552.pl_PL
dc.referencesHuhn, Willson. 2003. “The Stages of Legal Reasoning: Formalism, Analogy and Realism.” Villanova Law Review 48: 1–79.pl_PL
dc.referencesHyneman, Charles S. 1963. The Supreme Court on Trial. New York: Atherton Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesJaff Peter. 2009. “Varieties of Textualism: Unit of Analysis and Idiom in the Interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).” The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 7: 305–331.pl_PL
dc.referencesJefferies, Kevin. 2001. “Judicial Activism and the Necessity of Auxiliary Precautions.” South Texas Law Review 43: 101–119.pl_PL
dc.referencesKarkkainen, Bradley C. 1994. “ ‘Plain Meaning’: Justice Scalia’s Jurisprudence of Strict Statutory Construction.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 19: 401–477.pl_PL
dc.referencesKirk, Russell. 1986. The Conservative Mind. From Burke to Eliot. Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing.pl_PL
dc.referencesKirk, Russell. 2005. Przyszłość konserwatyzmu. Tł. Borys Walczyna. Warszawa: Arwil s.c.pl_PL
dc.referencesKłoskowska, Antonina. 1964. Kultura masowa. Warszawa: PWN.pl_PL
dc.referencesKmiec, Keenan D. 2004. “The Origin and Current Meanings of ‘Judicial Activism’.” Colorado Law Review 92: 1441–1477.pl_PL
dc.referencesKoch, Adrienne. 1961. Power. Morals. and the Founding Fathers: Essays in the Interpretation of the American Enlightenment. New York: Ithaca.pl_PL
dc.referencesKowalski, Jerzy. 1959. Amerykański funkcjonalizm prawniczy. Warszawa: Mieczysław Maneli Publisher.pl_PL
dc.referencesLaidler, Paweł. 1994. Basic Cases In U.S. Constitutional Law. The Separation of Powers. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.pl_PL
dc.referencesLaidler, Paweł. 2007. Konstytucja Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki. Przewodnik. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.pl_PL
dc.referencesLandis, James L. 1930. “A Note on ‘Statutory Interpretation’.” Harvard Law Review 43: 886–893.pl_PL
dc.referencesLang, Wiesław, Jerzy Wróblewski. 1986. Współczesna filozofia i teoria prawa w USA. Warszawa: PWN.pl_PL
dc.referencesLanger, Tomasz. 1988. Stany w USA. Instytucje – praktyka – doktryna. Warszawa: PWN.pl_PL
dc.referencesLawson, Gary. 1994. “The Constitutional Case Against Precedent.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 17: 23–33.pl_PL
dc.referencesLeiter, Brian. 1999. “Positivism, Formalism, Realism.” Columbia Law Review 99: 1138–1164.pl_PL
dc.referencesLeszczyński, Jerzy. 2010. Pozytywizacja prawa w dyskursie dogmatycznym. Kraków: Universitas.pl_PL
dc.referencesLipkin, Robert J. 2008. “We Are All Judicial Activist Now.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 77: 182–232.pl_PL
dc.referencesLlewellyn, Karl N. 1950. “Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons.” Vanderbilt Law Review 3: 395–401.pl_PL
dc.referencesLlewellyn, Karl N. 1960. The Common Law Tradition. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.pl_PL
dc.referencesLongchamps de Bérier, Franciszek. 2010. „Antydyskryminacyjna dyskryminacja? Granice polityki rasowej zakreślane przez Sąd Najwyższy Stanów Zjednoczonych”. Forum Prawnicze 1.1: 12–23.pl_PL
dc.referencesLudwikowska, Anna M. 1999. System prawa Stanów Zjednoczonych. Toruń: TNOiK.pl_PL
dc.referencesLudwikowska, Anna M., Rett Ludwikowski. 2008. Sądy w Stanach Zjednoczonych. Struktura i jurysdykcja. Toruń: TNOiK.pl_PL
dc.referencesMacCormick, Neil, Ota Weinberger. 1986. An Institutional Theory of Law. New Approaches to Legal Positivism. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Co.pl_PL
dc.referencesMain, Thomas O. 2006. “Judicial Discretion to Condition.” Temple Law Review 79.4: 1075–1126.pl_PL
dc.referencesMajchrowski, Jacek M., red. 1991. „Idee – państwo – prawo”. Zeszyty Naukowe UJ. Prace z Nauk Politycznych 28: 179–191.pl_PL
dc.referencesMałajny, Ryszard M. 2001. Trzy teorie podzielonej władzy. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe.pl_PL
dc.referencesMałajny, Ryszard M. 2003. „Reguła równości wobec prawa w orzecznictwie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego”. W Sześć lat Konstytucji Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej: doświadczenia i inspiracje. 177–188. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe.pl_PL
dc.referencesMałajny, Ryszard M., red. 2008. Konstytucjonalizm a doktryny polityczno-prawne. Najnowsze kierunki badań. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.pl_PL
dc.referencesManning, John F. 2001. “Textualism and the Equity of the Statute.” Columbia Law Review 101: 1–127.pl_PL
dc.referencesManning, John F. 2003. “The Absurdity Doctrine.” Harvard Law Review 116.3: 2387–2486.pl_PL
dc.referencesManning, John F. 2005. “Textualism and Legislative Intent.” Virginia Law Review 91: 419–450.pl_PL
dc.referencesManning, John F. 2006a. “What Divides Textualist from Purpositivism.” Columbia Law Review 70: 70–111.pl_PL
dc.referencesManning, John F. 2006b. “Justice Scalia and the Legislative Process.” New York University Annual Survey of American Law 62: 33–43.pl_PL
dc.referencesMarmor, Andrei. 1997. Law and Interpretation. Essays in Legal Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMarmor, Andrei. 2005. “The Immorality of Textualism.” Loyola Law Review 38: 1–19.pl_PL
dc.referencesMarshall, William P. 2002. “Conservatives and the Seven Sins of Judicial Activism.” University of Colorado Law Review 72: 101–140.pl_PL
dc.referencesMarzula, Nancie G. 2002. “The Textualism of Clarence Thomas: Anchoring the Supreme Court’s Property Rights Jurisprudence to the Constitution.” Journal of Gender. Social Policy & The Law 10: 351–379.pl_PL
dc.referencesMason, Alpheus T., William M. Beaney. 2007. American Constitutional Law. Introductory Essays and Selected Cases. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.pl_PL
dc.referencesMatczak, Marcin. 2007. Summa iniuria. O błędzie formalizmu w stosowaniu prawa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.pl_PL
dc.referencesMcCloskey, Robert G. 2010. The American Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMcGinnis, John O., Michael B. Rappaport. 2007a. “A Pragmatic Defense Originalism.” Northwestern University Law Review 101.1: 917–935.pl_PL
dc.referencesMcGinnis, John O., Michael B. Rappaport 2007b. “Original Interpretative Principles as The Core of Originalism.” Northwestern University School of Law. Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series. Constitutional Commentary 962 142: 1–9.pl_PL
dc.referencesMcGinnis, John O., Michael B. Rappaport. 2009. “Original Methods Originalism. A New Theory of Interpretation and The Case Against Construction.” Northwestern University Law Review 103.2: 751–802.pl_PL
dc.referencesMcGowan, David O. 2000. “Ethos in Law and History: Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist, and the Supreme Court.” Minnesota Law Review 85: 755–898.pl_PL
dc.referencesMcGowan, David O. 2008. “Do As I Do, Not As I Say: An Empirical Investigation of Justice Scalia’s Ordinary Meaning Method of Statutory Interpretation.” Legal Studies Research Paper Series 08-015, April: 1–43.pl_PL
dc.referencesMedina, Barak. 2007. “Four Myths of Judicial Review: A Response to Richard Posner’s Criticism of Aharon Barak’s Judicial Activism.” 1–9. Harvard International Law Journal 49: 1–9.pl_PL
dc.referencesMeese, Edwin III. 1985. “Speech Before The D.C. Chapter of The Federalist Society Lawyers Division. Washington, D.C. November 15,” [w:] Steven Calabresi, ed. 2007a. Originalism. A Quarter-Century of Debate. 71–83. Washington: Regnery Publishing, Inc.pl_PL
dc.referencesMeese, Edwin III. 1996. “The Return to Constitutional Interpretation from Judicial Law-Making.”New York Law School Law Review 40: 925–933.pl_PL
dc.referencesMiller, Frederick T. 1994. Juries and Judges versus the Law. Virginia’s Provincial Legal Perspective, 1783–1828. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.pl_PL
dc.referencesMinelli, Christopher R. 2007. “Textualism as a Touchstone for Privately-Focused Treaty Interpretation.” University of Illinois College of Law 20, August: 1–6.pl_PL
dc.referencesMolot, Jonathan T. 2006. “The Rise and Fall Textualism.” Columbia Law Review 106.1: 1–69.pl_PL
dc.referencesMonaghan, Henry P. 1988. “Stare Decisis and Constitutional Adjudication.” Columbia Law Review 88.4: 723–773.pl_PL
dc.referencesMonteskiusz. 1957. O duchu praw. Tł. Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński. Warszawa: PWN.pl_PL
dc.referencesMorawski, Lech. 2002. Wykładnia w orzecznictwie sądów. Toruń: TNOiK.pl_PL
dc.referencesMorawski, Lech. 2006. Zasady wykładni prawa. Toruń: TNOiK.pl_PL
dc.referencesMorawski, Lech. 2009. „Zasada trójpodziału władzy. Trybunał Konstytucyjny i aktywizm sędziowski”. Przegląd Sejmowy XVII 4.93: 59–74.pl_PL
dc.referencesMullins, Morell E. 2003. “Tools. Not Rules: The Heuristic Nature of Statutory Interpretation.” Journal of Legislation 30: 3–76.pl_PL
dc.referencesNelson, Caleb. 2003. “Originalism and Interpretive Conventions.” The University of Chicago Law Review 70: 519–598.pl_PL
dc.referencesNelson, Caleb. 2005a. “A Response to Professor Manning.” Virginia Law Review 91: 451–470.pl_PL
dc.referencesNelson, Caleb. 2005b. “What is Textualism.” Virginia Law Review 91: 347–418.pl_PL
dc.referencesNelson, Thomas. 1978. “Raoul Berger. Government by the Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Valparaiso University Law Review 12.3: 617–621.pl_PL
dc.referencesNewmyer, R. Kent. 2001. John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesNowak, John E., Ronald D. Rotunda. 1983. Constitutional Law. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.pl_PL
dc.referencesO’Gorman, Frank. 2004. Edmund Burke: His Political Philosophy. London: Routledge.pl_PL
dc.referencesO’Neil, Jonathan. 2007. Originalism in American Law and Politics. A Constitutional History. Baltimore – London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesOpałek, Kazimierz, Jerzy Wróblewski. 1963. Współczesna teoria i socjologia prawa w Stanach Zjednoczonych Ameryki Północnej. Warszawa: PWN.pl_PL
dc.referencesOsiatyński, Wiktor. 1984. Współczesny konserwatyzm i liberalizm amerykański. Warszawa: PWN.pl_PL
dc.referencesOsiatyński, Wiktor. 1997. Wizje Stanów Zjednoczonych w pismach Ojców Założycieli. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.pl_PL
dc.referencesOstrom, Vincent. 1994. Federalizm Amerykański. Tworzenie społeczeństwa samorządnego. Tł. Justyna Kubicka-Daab. Warszawa–Olsztyn: Polskie Towarzystwo Psychologiczne.pl_PL
dc.referencesParrington, Vernon L. 1970. Główne nurty myśli amerykańskiej 1800–1860. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.pl_PL
dc.referencesPattison, Mark. 1889. Essays by the Late Mark Pattison. Ed. Henry Nettleship. Oxford: Clarendon Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesPercival, Robert V. 1995. “Environmental Federalism: Historical Roots and Contemporary Models.” Maryland Law Review 54: 1141–1182.pl_PL
dc.referencesPerry, Barbara A. 2004. “Original Intent or Evolving Constitution? Two Competing View on Interpretation.” Insights on Law & Society 5, Fall: 4–30.pl_PL
dc.referencesPettys, Todd E. 2009. “The Myth of the Written Constitution.” Notre Dame Law Review 84.3: 101–162.pl_PL
dc.referencesPhilipse, Herman. 2007. “Antonin Scalia’s Textualism in Philosophy, Theology, and Judicial Interpretation of the Constitution.” Utrecht Law Review 3.2, December: 169–192.pl_PL
dc.referencesPierce, Richard J. 1994. “The Supreme Court’s New Hypertextualism: An Invitation to Cacophony and Incoherence in the Administrative State.” Columbia Law Review 95: 749–781.pl_PL
dc.referencesPosner, Richard A. 1983. “The Meaning of Judicial Self-Restraint.” Indiana Law Journal 59: 1–24.pl_PL
dc.referencesPosner, Richard A. 1988. “The Jurisprudence of Skepticism.” Michigan Law Review 86.5, April: 827–891.pl_PL
dc.referencesPosner, Richard A. 1990. The Problems of Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesPost, Robert, Reva Siegel. 2006. “Originalism as Political Practice: The Right’s Living Constitution.” Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship 1: 545–574.pl_PL
dc.referencesPost, Robert, Reva Siegel. 2007. “Roe Rage: Democratic Constitutionalism and Backlash.” Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review 42: 373–433.pl_PL
dc.referencesPotter, Kathleen O. 2002. The Federalist’s Vision of Popular Sovereignty in The New American Republic. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.pl_PL
dc.referencesPound, Roscoe. 1921. The Spirit of Common Law. Boston: Marshall Jones Co.pl_PL
dc.referencesPound, Roscoe. 1922. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesPound, Roscoe. 1959. Jurisprudence. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.pl_PL
dc.referencesPowell, H. Jefferson. 1987. “Rules for Originalists.” Virginia Law Review 73: 659–699.pl_PL
dc.referencesProstak, Rafał. 2007. „Polityka i konstytucja. Refleksje nad prawem do prywatności w kontekście orzecznictwa Sądu Najwyższego Stanów Zjednoczonych”. Civitas. Studia z Filozofii Polityki 10: 60–77.pl_PL
dc.referencesPułło, Andrzej. 1997. System konstytucyjny Stanów Zjednoczonych. Warszawa. Wydawnictwo Sejmowe.pl_PL
dc.referencesQuarishi-Landes, Asifa. 2007. “Interpreting the Qur’an and the Constitution: Similarities’ in the Use of Text, Tradition, and Reason in Islamic and American Jurisprudence.” University of Wisconsin Law School. Legal Studies Research Paper Series 1036: 67–121.pl_PL
dc.referencesQuinn, Frederick, oprac. 1999. Eseje polityczne federalistów. Tł. Barbara Czarska. Kraków: Społeczny Instytut Wydawniczy Znak.pl_PL
dc.referencesRedford, Emette S., David B. Truman, Andrew Hacker, Alan F. Westin, Robert C. Wood. 1965. Politics and Government in The United States: National, State, and Local Edition. New York–Chicago–Burlingame: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.pl_PL
dc.referencesRehnquist, William H. 2006. “The Notion of Living Constitution.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 29.2: 401–415.pl_PL
dc.referencesReich, Charles A. 1963. “Mr. Justice Black and the Living Constitution.” Harvard Law Review 76: 673–754.pl_PL
dc.referencesRinghand, Lori A. 2007. “Judicial Activism: An Empirical Examination of Voting Behavior on the Rehnquist Natural Court.” University of Georgia School of Law 24.43: 1–45.pl_PL
dc.referencesRoberts, Caprice L. 2006. “Ratios, (Ir)rationality & Civil Rights Punitive Awards.” Akron Law Review 39: 1019–1046.pl_PL
dc.referencesRoberts, Caprice L. 2007. “In Search of Judicial Activism: Dangers in Quantifying the Qualitative.” Tennessee Law Review 567: 1–45.pl_PL
dc.referencesRossister, Clinton. 1961. The Federalist Papers. New York: New American Library.pl_PL
dc.referencesRostorotski, Artour. 2011. “Book Review – David A. Strauss, ‘The Living Constitution’ (2010).” German Law Journal 12.7: 1546–1552.pl_PL
dc.referencesRot, Henryk. 1973. „O prawie jako zjawisku kultury”. Kultura i Społeczeństwo 17.4: 89–106.pl_PL
dc.referencesRubin, Edward L., Malcolm Feeley. 1994. “Federalism: Some Notes on a National Neurosis.” Ucla Law Review 41: 903–952.pl_PL
dc.referencesSarnecki, Paweł. 2008. Ustroje konstytucyjne państw współczesnych. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.pl_PL
dc.referencesScalia, Antonin G. 1989. “Originalism: The Lesser Evil.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 57: 849–865.pl_PL
dc.referencesScalia, Antonin G. 1990. “Assorted Canards of Contemporary Legal Analyses.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 40: 581–597.pl_PL
dc.referencesScalia, Antonin G. 1997. A Matter of Interpretation. Federal Courts and The Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesScalia, Antonin, Steven G. Calabresi. 2007. Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate. Washington: Regnery Publishing, Inc.pl_PL
dc.referencesSchauer, Frederick. 1988. “Formalism.” Yale Law Journal 97: 509–548.pl_PL
dc.referencesSchlesinger, Arthur M., Jr. 1947. “The Supreme Court: 1947.” Fortune 35, January: 202–208.pl_PL
dc.referencesSchwartz, Alan. 2001. “New Textualism and the Rule of Law Subtext in the Supreme Court’s Bankruptcy Jurisprudence.” Faculty Scholarship Series 312: 149–197.pl_PL
dc.referencesSchwartz, Bernard. 1977. The Great Rights of Mankind. A History of the American Bill of Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSchwartz, Herman. 2000. The Struggle for Constitutional Justice in Post-Communist Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSearle, John R., ed. 1971. The Philosophy of Language. London: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSearle, John R. 1987. Czynności mowy. Rozważania z filozofii języka. Tł. Bohdan Chwedeńczuk. Warszawa: PAX.pl_PL
dc.referencesShane, Peter. 2000. “Federalism’s ‘Old Deal’: What’s Right and Wrong With Conservative Judicial Activism.” Villanova University School of Law. Public Law and Legal Theory 45.2: 201–243.pl_PL
dc.referencesShannon, Timothy J. 2000. Indians and Colonists at the Crossroads of Empire. The Albany Congress of 1754. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSiegel, Jonathan R. 1998. “Textualism and Contextualism in Administrative Law.” Boston University Law Review 78: 1023–1112.pl_PL
dc.referencesSiegel, Neil S. 2010. “Interring the Rhetoric of Judicial Activism.” DePaul Law Review 59: 555–599.pl_PL
dc.referencesSimon, Rita. 1980. The Jury: Its Role In American Society. Lanham: Lexington Books.pl_PL
dc.referencesSmith, Page. 1980. The Shaping of America: A People’s History of the Young Republic, Vol. 3. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.pl_PL
dc.referencesSmith, Peter J. 2008. “Textualism and Jurisdiction.” Columbia Law Review 108: 1883–1948.pl_PL
dc.referencesSmith, Stephen F. 2002. “Activism as Restraint: Lesson from Criminal Procedure.” Texas Law Review 80: 1057–1115.pl_PL
dc.referencesSmith, Tara A. 2007. “Why Originalism Won’t Die – Common Mistakes in Competing Theories of Judicial Interpretation.” Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy 2: 159–215.pl_PL
dc.referencesSoffer, Reba N. 2009. History, Historians, and Conservatism in Britain and America. From the Great War to Thatcher and Reagan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSolan, Lawrence M. 2005. “The New Textualists’ New Text.” Loyola Los Angeles Law Review 38: 2027–2062.pl_PL
dc.referencesSolimine, Michael E. 2003. “Formalism, Pragmatism, and the Conservative Critique of the Eleventh Amendment.” Michigan Law Review 10: 1–58.pl_PL
dc.referencesSolum, Lawrence B. 2007. “Constitutional Texting.” University of San Diego Law Review 44: 123–150.pl_PL
dc.referencesSolum, Lawrence B. 2008. “A Reader’s Guide to Semantic Originalism and a Reply to Professor Griffin.” Illinois Public Law Research Paper 08-12: 1–173.pl_PL
dc.referencesStaszewski, Glen. 2006. “Avoiding Absurdity.” Indiana Law Journal 81: 1001–1065.pl_PL
dc.referencesStelmach, Jerzy, Bartosz Brożek. 2004. Metody prawnicze. Kraków: Zakamycze.pl_PL
dc.referencesStevens, John P. 1985. “Judicial Restraint.” San Diego Law Review 22: 437–452.pl_PL
dc.referencesStone, Julius. 1950. The Province and Function of Law: Law as Logic, Justice and Social Control. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesStory, Joseph. 1833. 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, Vol. 2. Boston: Hilliard, Gray and Co.pl_PL
dc.referencesStrauss, David A. 2005. “Originalism, Precedent, and Candor.” Constitutional Commentary 22.2, June: 299–309.pl_PL
dc.referencesStrauss, David A. 2008. “Why Conservatives Shouldn’t Be Originalists.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 31: 969–976.pl_PL
dc.referencesStrauss, David A. 2010. The Living Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesStrauss, David A. 2011. “Originalism, Conservatism, and Judicial Restraint.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 34.1: 137–146.pl_PL
dc.referencesStrauss, Leo, Joseph Cropsey, eds. 1972. History of Political Philosophy. Chicago: Rand McNally.pl_PL
dc.referencesStreiker, Jordan, Sanford Levinson, Jack M. Balkin. 1995. “Taking Text and Structure Really Seriously: Constitutional Interpretation and the Crisis of Presidential Eligibility.” Texas Law Review 74: 1–26.pl_PL
dc.referencesSummers, Robert S. 1966. “The New Analytical Jurists.” New York University Law Review 41: 861–896.pl_PL
dc.referencesSunstein, Cass R. 1987. “Lochner’s Legacy.” Columbia Law Review 87.5: 873–919.pl_PL
dc.referencesSunstein, Cass R. 1989. “Interpreting Statutes in the Regulatory State.” Harvard Law Review 103: 1–85.pl_PL
dc.referencesSunstein, Cass R. 1996. Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSunstein, Cass R. 1999. One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSzajnert, Danuta. 2011. Intencja autora i interpretacja – między inwencją a atencją. Teksty i parateksty. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.pl_PL
dc.referencesSzyszkowski, Wacław. 1980. Twórcy Stanów Zjednoczonych. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna.pl_PL
dc.referencesTeles, Steven M. 2008. The Rise of the Conservatism Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton–Oxford: Princeton University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesThe Federalist Papers. 2004. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing.pl_PL
dc.referencesThe Federalist Papers. 2006. New York: Cosimo Classics.pl_PL
dc.referencesThe Federalist Papers. 2008. Oxford: Oxford World’s Classic.pl_PL
dc.referencesThe Great Debate Interpreting Our Written Constitution. 1986. Washington: The Federalist Society.pl_PL
dc.referencesThe Writings of George Washington 1788–1790. 1939. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.pl_PL
dc.referencesTokarczyk, Roman. 2009. Prawo amerykańskie. Kraków: Wolters Kluwer Polska.pl_PL
dc.referencesTreanor, William M. 1995. “The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process.” Columbia Law Review 95: 782–887.pl_PL
dc.referencesTreanor, William M. 2007. “Taking Text Too Seriously: Modern Textualism, Original Meaning, and the Case of Amar’s Bill of Rights.” Michigan Law Review 106: 487–543.pl_PL
dc.referencesTreanor, William M. 2009. “Against Textualism.” Northwestern University Law Review 103.2: 1–24.pl_PL
dc.referencesTribe, Laurence H. 1988. American Constitutional Law. Minneola: Foundation Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTribe, Laurence H., Michael C. Dorf. 1991. On Reading The Constitution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTroy, Daniel E. 1998. Retroactive Legislation. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTrzecia Debata Tocqueville’owska. Sąd czy ustawodawca: Legitymizacja sądownictwa konstytucyjnego we współczesnej Europie. 2009. Łódź: Centrum Myśli Polityczno-Prawnej im. Alexisa De Tocqueville’a.pl_PL
dc.referencesTushnet, Mark. 1999. Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTushnet, Mark. 2008. I Dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Boston: Beacon Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTucker, John R. 1899. The Constitution of the United States: A Critical Discussion of its Genesis, Development, and Interpretation. Longmont: F.B. Rothman, Littleton.pl_PL
dc.referencesTucker, St. George. 1803. Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to The Constitution and Laws. Philadelphia: William Young Birch, and Abraham Small.pl_PL
dc.referencesWeinrib, Ernest J. 1995. The Idea of Private Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesWells, Harry K. 1956. Pragmatyzm. Filozofia imperializmu. Tł. Andrzej Konarek. Warszawa: Książka i Wiedza.pl_PL
dc.referencesWhittington, Keith E. 1999. Constitutional Interpretation. Original Intent, and Interpretation Judicial Review. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.pl_PL
dc.referencesWhittington, Keith E. 2004. “The New Originalism.” Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 2: 599–613.pl_PL
dc.referencesWilkinson, J. Harvie, III. 1989. “The Role of Reason in the Rule of Law.” University of Chicago Law Review 56: 779–809.pl_PL
dc.referencesWolfe, Christopher. 1994. The Rise of Modern Judicial Review: From Constitutional Interpretation to Judge-Made Law. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.pl_PL
dc.referencesWierzbicka, Anna. 1999. Język – umysł – kultura. Wybór prac. Red. Jerzy Bartmiński. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.pl_PL
dc.referencesWierzbicka, Anna. 2006. Semantyka. Jednostki elementarne i uniwersalne. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.pl_PL
dc.referencesWright, Georg H. 1963. Norm and Action. New York: Humanities.pl_PL
dc.referencesWróbel, Andrzej. 2010. „‘As far as possible’ – granice aktywizmu sędziowskiego czy alibi dla pasywizmu sędziowskiego, czyli o niektórych problemach wykładni prawa krajowego zgodnie z dyrektywami.20100-p”. W Dyskrecjonalność w prawie – materiały XVIII Ogólnopolskiego Zjazdu Katedr Teorii i Filozofii Prawa. Miedzeszyn k. Warszawy, 22 – 24 września 2008 r. Red. Wiesław Staśkiewicz, Tomasz Stawecki, Warszawa: LexisNexis Polska.pl_PL
dc.referencesWróblewski, Jerzy. 1988. Sądowe stosowanie prawa. Warszawa: PWN.pl_PL
dc.referencesWronkowska, Sławomira, red. 2005. Polska kultura prawna a proces integracji europejskiej. Kraków: Zakamycze.pl_PL
dc.referencesYoung, Ernest A. 2002. “Judicial Activism and Conservative Politics.” University of Colorado Law Review 73: 1139–1216.pl_PL
dc.referencesYoung, Ernest A. 2004. “The Rehnquist Court’s Two Federalisms.” Texas Law Review 83: 1–165.pl_PL
dc.referencesYoung, Ernest A. 2007. “The Constitution Outside the Constitution.” Yale Law Journal 117: 408–473.pl_PL
dc.referencesZelizer, Julian E., ed. 2004. The American Congress. The Building of Democracy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.pl_PL
dc.referencesZeppos, Nicholas S. 1990. “Legislative History and the Interpretation of Statutes: Toward a Fact – Finding Model of Statutory Interpretation.” Virginia Law Review 76: 1295–1374.pl_PL
dc.referencesZirk-Sadowski, Marek. 1977. „Prawo a kultura”. Acta Universitatis Lodzienis. Nauki Humanistyczno-Społeczne 19: 17–27.pl_PL
dc.referencesZirk-Sadowski, Marek. 1997. Filozoficzno-teoretyczne problemy sądowego stosowania prawa. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.pl_PL
dc.referencesZirk-Sadowski, Marek, Bartosz Wojciechowski, Tomasz Bekrycht, red. 2014. „Integracja zewnętrzna i wewnętrzna prawoznawstwa”. Jurysprudencja 3: 11–38.pl_PL
dc.referencesBalkin, Jack M. Why No One Truly Believes in a Dead Constitution. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2005/08/alive_and_kicking.htmlpl_PL
dc.referencesBarczentewicz, Mikołaj. Martwa ręka czy żyjące drzewo? O wykładni Konstytucji USA. http://www.barczentewicz.com/kategoria/prawo/wykladnia-konstytucji/pl_PL
dc.referencesBarczentewicz, Mikołaj. 2010. Oryginalizm jako wykładnia konstytucji. http://www.barczentewicz.com/oryginalizm-jako-koncepcja-wykladni-konstytucji/pl_PL
dc.referencesBielska-Brodziak, Agnieszka. Materiały legislacyjne w dyskursie interpretacyjnym z perspektywy brytyjskiej. amerykańskiej. francuskiej. szwedzkiej i polskiej. http://www.prawo.univ.gda.pl/teoria/uploads/zjazd/Brodziak.pdfpl_PL
dc.referencesBodwen, Thomas A. Justice Holmes and the Empty Constitution. http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-summer/justice-holmes-empty-constitution.asppl_PL
dc.referencesCohen, Adam. 2006. What Chief Justice Roberts Forgot in His First Term: Judicial Modesty. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/opinion/09sun3.htmlpl_PL
dc.referencesCross, Frank B., Stefanie A. Lindquist. The Scientific of Judicial Activism. http://ssrn.com/abstract=939768pl_PL
dc.referencesGoldberg, Daniel. 2006. I do not Think it Means what you Think it Means: How Kripke and Wittgenstein’s Analysis on Rule Following Undermines Justice Scalia’s Textualism and Originalism. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=896106pl_PL
dc.referencesFilipowicz, Stanisław. Cud w epoce rozumu. http://www.omp.org.pl/stareomp/index4844.html?module=subjects&func=viewpage&pageid=296pl_PL
dc.referencesFish, Stanley. Intentional neglect. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/19/opinion/19fish.htmlpl_PL
dc.referencesHolmes, Oliver W. The Path of the Law. http://www.constitution.org/lrev/owh/path_law.htmpl_PL
dc.referencesImburski, Jarosław. 2005. O tym jak korporacja stała się osobą. http://recyklingidei.pl/imburski_o_tym_jak_korporacja_stala_sie_osobapl_PL
dc.referencesKrawczyk, Tomasz F. Bezcenne chwile. http://www.teologiapolityczna.pl/tomasz-f-krawczyk-bezcenne-chwilepl_PL
dc.referencesMadison, James. 1787. Notes of Debates in The Federal Convention of 1787. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/preface.htmlpl_PL
dc.referencesMcWhinney, Edward. Judicial Activism and The International Court of Justice. http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ls/McWhinney_outline_CT.pdfpl_PL
dc.referencesNowak, Bartłomiej. 2008. „Alexander Hamilton – ojciec kapitalizmu amerykańskiego”. Wrocławskie Studia Erazmiańskie. Zeszyty Studenckie 1. http://www.bibliotekacyfrowa.pl/Content/29200/004.pdfpl_PL
dc.referencesScalia, Antonin G. Mułłowie zachodu: sędziowie jako arbitrzy moralni. http://blog.brpo.salon24.pl/126980pl_PL
dc.referencesSmith, Tara. Why Originalism Won’t Died – Common Mistakes Competing Theories of Judicial Interpretation. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy 230. 2007. Online Edition. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1276513pl_PL
dc.referencesSolum, Lawrence B. A Reader’s Guide to Semantic Originalism and a Replay to Professor Griffin. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1130665pl_PL
dc.referencesSolum, Lawrence B. Legal Theory Lexicon 035: Strict Construction and Judicial Activism. http://lsolum.typepad.com/legal_theory_lexicon/2004/05/legal_theory_le_3.htmlpl_PL
dc.referencesStaniłko, Jan F. Rok Temidy- Sąd Najwyższy Stanów zjednoczonych w 2005 r. http://www.omp.org.pl/stareomp/indexc348.html?module=subjects&func=viewpage&pageid=498pl_PL
dc.referencesWilson, Sean. 2009. The Fallacy of Originalism: What Philosophy of Language and Law Says About “Original Meanings”. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1405451pl_PL
dc.referencesMachaj, Łukasz. Wypowiedzi symboliczne w orzecznictwie Sądu Najwyższego USA. http://www.bibliotekacyfrowa.pl/Content/38242/Wypowiedzi_symboliczne.pdfpl_PL
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/8088-006-1
dc.disciplinefilozofiapl_PL
dc.disciplinehistoriapl_PL
dc.disciplinenauki prawnepl_PL


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Międzynarodowe
Poza zaznaczonymi wyjątkami, licencja tej pozycji opisana jest jako Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Międzynarodowe