Works matching Originalism (Constitutional interpretation)
1
- University of New Hampshire Law Review, 2020, v. 18, n. 2, p. 261
- Article
2
- Cleveland State Law Review, 2014, v. 63, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
3
- Philosophy Compass, 2011, v. 6, n. 6, p. 408, doi. 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00406.x
- Article
4
- BYU Journal of Public Law, 2014, v. 28, n. 2, p. 283
- Article
5
- Quinnipiac Law Review, 2022, v. 40, n. 4, p. 621
- Article
6
- Queen's Law Journal, 2021, v. 46, n. 2, p. 281
- Article
8
- U.C. Davis Law Review, 2017, v. 50, n. 3, p. 1181
- Article
9
- International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2013, v. 11, n. 4, p. 842, doi. 10.1093/icon/mot049
- Article
10
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2023, v. 46, n. 3, p. 1197
- Article
11
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2023, v. 46, n. 3, p. 983
- RODRIGUEZ-BLANCO, VERONICA
- Article
12
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2019, v. 42, n. 1, p. 91
- Article
13
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2019, v. 42, n. 1, p. 81
- Article
14
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2019, v. 42, n. 1, p. 59
- Article
15
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2019, v. 42, n. 1, p. 43
- Article
16
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2018, v. 41, n. 1, p. 373
- Article
18
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2015, v. 38, n. 3, p. 889
- Article
19
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2015, v. 38, n. 3, p. 817
- Article
20
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2015, v. 38, n. 3, p. i
- Article
22
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2014, v. 37, n. 3, p. 1123
- Article
23
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2005, v. 28, n. 3, p. 909
- Article
24
- Brigham Young University Law Review, 2021, v. 2021, n. 2, p. 401
- Article
25
- Brigham Young University Law Review, 2018, v. 2018, n. 3, p. 695
- Article
26
- Brigham Young University Law Review, 2017, v. 2017, n. 6, p. 1683
- Article
27
- University of Illinois Law Review, 2012, v. 2012, n. 3, p. 669
- Article
28
- University of Illinois Law Review, 2012, v. 2012, n. 3, p. 801
- Article
29
- University of Illinois Law Review, 2012, v. 2012, n. 3, p. 815
- Article
30
- University of Illinois Law Review, 2012, v. 2012, n. 3, p. 783
- Article
31
- Wisconsin Law Review, 2025, v. 2025, n. 2, p. 483, doi. 10.59015/wlr.YBDI2290
- Article
33
- Anglican Theological Review, 2000, v. 82, n. 3, p. 537
- Article
34
- Tennessee Law Review, 2022, v. 89, n. 4, p. 885
- Article
35
- Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 2013, v. 25, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
36
- Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 2013, v. 25, n. 1, p. 101
- Article
37
- Cleveland State Law Review, 2014, v. 63, n. 1, p. 23
- Article
38
- Boston University Law Review, 2024, v. 104, n. 5, p. 1381
- Article
39
- Boston University Law Review, 2015, v. 95, n. 6, p. 1745
- Article
40
- 2012
- Balkin, Jack M.;
- Strauss, David A.
- Question & Answer
41
- Boston University Law Review, 2012, v. 92, n. 4, p. 1245
- Article
42
- Boston University Law Review, 2012, v. 92, n. 4, p. 1237
- Article
43
- Syracuse Law Review, 2016, v. 66, n. 1, p. 41
- Article
44
- Texas Law Review, 2013, v. 91, n. 7, p. 1739
- Berman, Mitchell N.;
- Toh, Kevin
- Article
45
- Texas Law Review, 2013, v. 91, n. 7, p. 1785
- Article
46
- University of Miami Law Review, 2017, v. 72, n. 1, p. 112
- Article
47
- Maryland Law Review, 2024, v. 83, n. 4, p. 1261
- FRIEDMAN, DAN;
- HARRIS, BARNETT
- Article
48
- Maryland Law Review, 2012, v. 71, n. 4, p. 1126
- Article
49
- University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 2014, v. 16, n. 5, p. 1531
- Article
50
- University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 2013, v. 16, n. 2, p. 369
- Article