Wildy Logo
(020) 7242 5778
enquiries@wildy.com

Book of the Month

Cover of Company Directors: Duties, Liabilities and Remedies

Company Directors: Duties, Liabilities and Remedies

Edited by: Mark Arnold KC, Simon Mortimore KC
Price: £275.00

Lord Denning: Life, Law and Legacy



  


Welcome to Wildys

Watch


NEW EDITION Pre-order Mortgage Receivership: Law and Practice



 Stephanie Tozer, Cecily Crampin, Tricia Hemans
Practical guidance to relevant law & procedure


Offers for Newly Called Barristers & Students

Special Discounts for Newly Called & Students

Read More ...


Secondhand & Out of Print

Browse Secondhand Online

Read More...


Easter Closing

We will be closed between Friday 29th March and Monday 1st April for the Easter Bank Holidays, reopening at 8.30am on Tuesday 2nd April. Any orders received during this period will be processed with when we re-open.

Hide this message

Methods of Interpretation: How the Supreme Court Reads the Constitution


ISBN13: 9780195377118
Published: April 2009
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Country of Publication: USA
Format: Hardback
Price: £110.00



Despatched in 5 to 7 days.

This book examines the various methodologies the Supreme Court, and individual justices, have employed throughout history when interpreting the Constitution. Rather than attempting to set forth an overall theory of constitutional interpretation or plunge into the never ending scholarly debate over interpretative theory, Lackland H. Bloom focuses exclusively on what the Court and individual justices have done and said about constitutional interpretation in the course of deciding constitutional cases.

He identifies many of the best, and a few of the worst, examples of particular interpretative methodologies, as well as the best examples of explicit discussions of constitutional interpretation by the Court and individual justices.

Professor Bloom pays particular focus on the Supreme Court's approaches to constitutional interpretation since it is the Court that sets the standards. Although commentators may have the final word on what constitutional interpretation should be, he argues that the Court essentially has the final word on what it actually is.