Cover of book: Die Verfassungsinterpretation am US-Supreme Court
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Monograph No access

Die Verfassungsinterpretation am US-Supreme Court

Begründungen und politische Ausrichtung zwischen "Originalism" und "Living Constitution"
Authors:
Publisher:
 2019

Keywords

Bibliographic data

Edition
1/2019
Copyright Year
2019
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-5661-2
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-9806-1
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Politik und Recht
Language
German
Pages
504
Product Type
Monograph

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 18
  2. I. Einleitung No access 19 - 20
      1. 1. Das Legal Model No access
      2. 2. Das Attitudinal Model No access
      3. 3. Das Strategic Model No access
      4. 4. Der New Institutionalism No access
    2. B. Stand der Forschung hinsichtlich Originalism und Living Constitution als Verfassungsinterpretationen No access
    3. C. Der Aufbau der Arbeit No access
      1. 1. Auslegungsschulen außerhalb des Hauptstroms der amerikanischen Rechtswissenschaft No access
        1. a. Präzedenzfälle und Stare Decisis als Auslegungsschule No access
          1. aa. Prüfungsmaßstäbe als allgemeines Problem der Rechtsdogmatik No access
          2. bb. Prüfungsziele als allgemeines Problem der Rechtsdogmatik No access
        3. c. Die Auslegungsschule des Structuralism No access
          1. aa. Pragmatismus in der Urteilsbegründung No access
          2. bb. Pragmatismus im Urteilsergebnis No access
        5. f. Die Einbeziehung ausländischen Rechts in die Rechtsprechung No access
        6. g. Zwischenfazit zu den Auslegungsschulen neben Originalism und Living Constitution No access
      1. 1. Variationen der Begrifflichkeit No access
      2. 2. Abgrenzung des Originalism von „Tradition“, „Strict Construction“ und „Judicial Restraint“ No access
      3. 3. Die Entstehung des Begriffes „Originalism“ No access
          1. aa. Abstrakte Definition des Originalism nach Berger No access
          2. bb. Erstes Anwendungsgebiet des Originalism bei Berger mit politischer Ausrichtung No access
          3. cc. Zweites Anwendungsgebiet des Originalism bei Berger mit politischer Ausrichtung No access
          1. aa. Abstrakte Definition des Originalism nach Bork No access
          2. bb. Erstes Anwendungsgebiet des Originalism bei Bork No access
          3. cc. Zweites Anwendungsgebiet des Originalism bei Bork No access
          4. dd. Robert Borks Originalism und der politische Konservatismus in den USA No access
          1. aa. Abstrakte Definition des Originalism nach Whittington No access
          2. bb. Anwendungsgebiete des Originalism bei Whittington No access
          3. cc. Anwendungsgebiete des Originalism bei McConnell No access
          4. dd. Michael McConnell als möglicher Kandidat für den Supreme Court unter Präsident George W. Bush No access
      1. 1. Variationen der Begrifflichkeit No access
      2. 2. Abgrenzung der Living Constitution von der „Working Constitution“ und vom Begriff des „Judicial Activism“ No access
      3. 3. Die Entstehung des Begriffes Living Constitution No access
          1. aa. Abstrakte Definition der Living Constitution nach Dworkin No access
          2. bb. Anwendungsgebiete der Living Constitution bei Dworkin No access
          3. cc. Die Living Constitution als Moral Reading und der politische Liberalismus in den USA No access
          1. aa. Abstrakte Definition der Living Constitution nach Ackerman No access
          2. bb. Historische Anwendungsgebiete der Living Constitution bei Ackerman No access
          3. cc. Die Living Constitution als populäre Verfassungszusätze und der politische Liberalismus in den USA No access
          1. aa. Abstrakte Definition der Living Constitution nach Tribe No access
          2. bb. Anwendungsgebiete der Living Constitution bei Tribe No access
          3. cc. Die Living Constitution als Konstruktionsmodi der unsichtbaren Verfassung und der politische Liberalismus in den USA No access
          1. aa. Abstrakte Definition der Living Constitution nach Strauss No access
          2. bb. Anwendungsgebiete der Living Constitution bei Strauss No access
          3. cc. Die Living Constitution als Common Law mit britischer Tradition und der politische Liberalismus in den USA No access
      1. 1. Daniel Farber/Suzanna Sherry: Verwerfung von Globalinterpretationsansätzen im amerikanischen Verfassungsrecht No access
      2. 2. Akhil Reed Amar: Intratextualism No access
      3. 3. Jack Balkin: Living Originalism No access
      1. 1. Abstrakte Gegenüberstellung des Originalism und der Living Constitution bei den Klassikern No access
      2. 2. Die Anwendungsgebiete, Begründungen und Ergebnisse des Originalism und der Living Constitution bei den Klassikern No access
      3. 3. Die politische Ausrichtung der Ergebnisse bei den Klassikern No access
      1. 1. Die Auswahl der Richter No access
      2. 2. Die Analyseart der Richter: Ex-Ante-Analyse aus den außergerichtlichen Publikationen statt Ex-Post-Analyse aus den niedergeschriebenen Urteilen No access
      3. 3. Die Recherche der relevanten Quellen No access
      1. 1. William J. Brennan No access
      2. 2. Byron R. White No access
      3. 3. Harry A. Blackmun No access
      4. 4. Lewis F. Powell No access
      5. 5. John Paul Stevens No access
      6. 6. Sandra Day O’Connor No access
        1. a. Richter Rehnquist – ein Originalist? No access
        2. b. Rehnquists Grundansätze der Rechtsinterpretation No access
        1. a. Abstrakte Definition des Textualism nach Scalia No access
        2. b. Anwendungsgebiete des Interpretationsansatzes Scalias mit Begründungen und Ergebnissen No access
        3. c. Die politische Ausrichtung der Ergebnisse des Interpretationsansatzes Scalias No access
      9. 9. Anthony M. Kennedy No access
      10. 10. David H. Souter No access
      11. 11. Clarence Thomas No access
      12. 12. Ruth Bader Ginsburg No access
        1. a. Abstrakte Definition des Interpretationsansatzes nach Breyer No access
        2. b. Anwendungsgebiete des Interpretationsansatzes Breyers mit Begründungen und Ergebnissen No access
        3. c. Die politische Ausrichtung der Ergebnisse des Interpretationsansatzes Breyers No access
      14. 14. John G. Roberts No access
      1. 1. Samuel A. Alito No access
      2. 2. Sonia Sotomayor No access
      3. 3. Elena Kagan No access
      1. 1. Allgemeine Selbstpositionierung der Richter No access
      2. 2. Der Anwendungsbereich und die Begründungsstärke der Selbstpositionierung der Richter No access
      3. 3. Die politische Ausrichtung der Ergebnisse der Selbstpositionierung der Richter No access
      1. 1. Die Debatte um die vorherrschende Auslegungsschule No access
      2. 2. Die Debatte um die politische Ausrichtung der Urteilsergebnisse No access
      3. 3. Die Debatte um Judicial Restraint oder Judicial Activism im Hinblick auf Kongressgesetze und Präzedenzfälle des Gerichts No access
      4. 4. Einordnung des dritten Hauptteils der Arbeit in die Debattenstränge No access
      1. 1. Die Auswahl der Landmark Decisions No access
      2. 2. Die Case-Briefing-Methode als Analyseraster zur Auswertung von Landmark Decisions des US-Supreme Court No access
      3. 3. Das Kategoriensystem im Bereich der Rationale zur Ermittlung der Begründungsart im Rahmen des Case Briefing No access
      4. 4. Die politische Ausrichtung der Urteilsergebnisse nach der Datenbank von Segal und Spaeth und vier allgemeine Probleme der Einordnung No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Powell No access
        5. White No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Rehnquist No access
        5. Scalia No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Rehnquist No access
        5. Blackmun No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Brennan No access
        5. O’Connor No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale (1) No access
        4. White No access
        5. Rehnquist No access
        6. Rationale (2) No access
        7. Rehnquist No access
        8. White No access
        9. Rationale (3) No access
        10. White No access
        11. Rehnquist No access
        12. Holding No access
        13. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Scalia No access
        5. Holding No access
        6. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Kennedy No access
        5. Holding No access
        6. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Kennedy No access
        5. Blackmun No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses: No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Stevens No access
        5. Thomas No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Rehnquist No access
        5. Stevens No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Kennedy No access
        5. O‘Connor No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Kennedy No access
        5. Stevens No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Stevens No access
        5. Rehnquist No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteils No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Rehnquist No access
        5. Souter No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Per Curiam No access
        5. Stevens No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Rehnquist No access
        5. Souter No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. O’Connor No access
        5. Rehnquist No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Polititsche Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Rehnquist No access
        5. Scalia No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Kennedy No access
        5. O’Connor No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Stevens No access
        5. Thomas No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Roberts No access
        5. Breyer No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Scalia No access
        5. Stevens No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Einordnung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Issue No access
        2. Rationale No access
        3. Kennedy No access
        4. Roberts No access
        5. Holding No access
        6. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Kennedy No access
        5. Stevens No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Einordnung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Scalia No access
        5. Breyer No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Roberts No access
        5. Scalia No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Roberts No access
        5. Ginsburg No access
        6. Holding No access
        7. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
        1. Facts No access
        2. Issue No access
        3. Rationale No access
        4. Roberts No access
        5. Holding No access
        6. Politische Ausrichtung des Urteilsergebnisses No access
      1. 1. Die Rolle des Originalism und der Living Constitution in der Begründungsarbeit der Landmark Decisions No access
      2. 2. Die Anwendungsgebiete, Begründungen und Ergebnisse des Originalism und der Living Constitution in der Rechtsprechung des Supreme Court No access
      3. 3. Die politische Ausrichtung der Urteilsergebnisse – Gibt es eine Dominanz des Originalism oder der Living Constitution und führt dies jeweils entweder zu konservativen oder liberalen Ergebnissen? No access
    1. A. Die zentralen Ergebnisse der Arbeit No access
    2. B. Bisherige Literatur zum Rehnquist- und zum Roberts-Court verglichen mit den Ergebnissen der vorgelegten Studie No access
    3. C. Politikwissenschaftliche Erklärungsversuche für die zentralen Ergebnisse der Arbeit – insbesondere für die Begründungsdoppelstrategie des Supreme Court No access
  8. VII. Tabellenanhang No access 433 - 474
    1. Allgemeine Literatur No access
    2. Richterliteratur No access
    3. Supreme-Court-Urteile (im Fließtext oder in den dazu gehörigen Fußnoten zitierte) No access
    1. Verfasser: Sebastian Dregger No access
    1. Author: Sebastian Dregger No access

Bibliography (385)

  1. Ackerman, Bruce. 1991. We the People 1 – Foundations, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  2. Ackerman, Bruce. 1998. We the People 2 – Transformations, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  3. Ackerman, Bruce. 2007. The Living Constitution, In Harvard Law Review, Vol. 120, 1737-1812, https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/ackerman.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  4. Alexander, John. 1987. We the People: The American Constitution After 200 Years: The Constitution of the United States of America, In Los Angeles Times, September 13, 1787, http://articles.latimes.com/1987-09-13/news/ss-7801_1_notes-and-commentary . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  5. Amar, Akhil Reed. 2000. Foreword: The Document and the Doctrine. In Harvard Law Review, Vol. 114, 26-134. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  6. Amar, Akhil Reed. 2006. America’s Constitution – A Biography, New York: Random House Publishing Group. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  7. Amar, Akhil Reed. 2012. Remembering Bork, In Slate Magazine, December 20, 2012, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/12/robert_bork_s_death_learning_from_him_and_proving_him_wrong.html . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  8. American Constitution Society, About ACS – Shaping Debate, Building Networks, Making a Difference, http://www.acslaw.org/about . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  9. Arkes, Hadley. 1990. Beyond the Constitution, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  10. Bachiochi, Erika. 2011. Embodied Equality: Debunking Equal Protection Arguments for Abortion Rights, In Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 34, 896-950, http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/34_3_889_Bachiochi.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  11. Bailey, Michael A./Maltzman, Forrest. 2008. Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court. In American Political Science Review, Vol. 102: 369-384. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  12. Balkin, Jack M. 2005. Alive and Kicking – Why no one truly believes in a dead Constitution, In Slate Magazine, August 29, 2005, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2005/08/alive_and_kicking.html . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  13. Balkin, Jack M. 2007. Clarence Thomas‘s Originalism, July 11, 2007. In Balkinization Blog, http://balkin.blogspot.de/2007/07/clarence-thomass-originalism.html . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  14. Balkin, Jack M. 2011. Living Originalism, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  15. Banks, Christopher P./Blakeman John C. 2012. The U. S. Supreme Court and New Federalism – From the Rehnquist to the Roberts Court, New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  16. Barber, Sotiorios A./Fleming, James E. 2007. Constitutional Interpretation – The Basic Questions, New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  17. Barnett, Randy E. 1988. One Cheer for the Reagan Years: Economic Liberties and the Constitution, In Assessing the Reagan Years, Ed. David Boaz, 379-390, CATO Institute, Washington, DC. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  18. Barnhart, Bill/Schlickman, Gene. 2010. John Paul Stevens – An Independent Life, DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  19. Bartels, Brandon L. 2009. The Constraining Capacity of Legal Doctrine on the U.S. Supreme Court. In American Political Science Review, Vol. 103, 474-495. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  20. Baum, Lawrence. 2007. The Supreme Court (9th ed.), Washington DC: CQ Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  21. Belsky, Martin H. 2002. The Rehnquist Court – A Review at the End of the Millenium. In The Rehnquist Court – A Retrospective, Ed. Martin H. Belsky, 3-11, New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  22. Benesh, Sara C./Czarnezki, Jason J. 2009. The Ideology of Legal Interpretation. In Journal of Law & Policy, Vol. 29, 113-132, https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=law_journal_law_policy . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  23. Bennett, Robert W./Solum, Lawrence B. 2011. Constitutional Originalism – A Debate, New York: Cornell University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  24. Berger, Raoul. 1974. Executive Privilege: A Constitutional Myth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  25. Berger, Raoul. 1997 [1977]. Government by Judiciary – The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Second Edition, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  26. Berger, Raoul. 1990. Robert Bork’s Contribution to Original Intention (Book Review: The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law), In Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 84, 1167-1189. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  27. Bethel, Tom. 2012. Eric Hoffer: The Longshoreman Philosopher, Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  28. Biskupic, Joan. 2009. American Original – The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, New York: Sarah Critchton Books. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  29. Bloom, Lackland H. 2009. Methods of Interpretation: How the Supreme Court Reads the Constitution, New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  30. Bobbitt, Philip. 1991. Constitutional Interpretation, Cambridge (USA): Blackwell. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  31. Bork, Robert H. 1971. Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, In Indiana Law Review, Vol. 47, 1-35. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  32. Bork, Robert H. 1990. The Tempting of America – The Political Seduction of the Law, New York: The Free Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  33. Bork, Robert H. 1996. Slouching Towards Gomorrah – Modern Liberalism and American Decline, New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  34. Bork, Robert H. 2003. Coercing Virtue – The Worldwide Rule of Judges, Washington DC: The AEI Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  35. Bork, Robert H./Rivkin Jr. Davis B. 2005. A War the Courts Shouldn’t Manage, January 27, 2005, The Hudson Institute, http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3595 . [nicht mehr online verfügbar]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  36. Bork, Robert H. 2011. Turning to Constitution in Times of Stress, June 14, 2011, The Hudson Institute, https://www.hudson.org/research/8085-turning-to-constitution-in-times-of-stress . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  37. Bradley, Craig M. 2006. Introduction. In The Rehnquist Legacy, Ed. Craig M. Bradley, 1-10, New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  38. Braml, Josef. 2005. Gretchenfrage für Bush und die Republikaner – Die Neubesetzung des U.S. Supreme Court, In SWP-Aktuell 2005/A 49, http://www.swp-berlin.org/de/publikationen/swp-aktuell-de/swp-aktuell-detail/article/neubesetzung_des_us_supreme_court.html . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  39. Brenner, Saul/Spaeth, Harold J. 1995. Stare Indecisis – The Alteration of Precedent on the Supreme Court, 1946-1992, New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  40. Brest, Paul. 1980. The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding, In Boston University Law Review, Vol. 60, 204-238. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  41. Brest, Paul. 1981. The Fundamental Rights Controversy: The Essential Contradictions of Normative Constitutional Scholarship, In The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 90, 1063-1109. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  42. Brooks, Roy, L. 2005. Structures of Judicial Decision Making from Legal Formalism to Critical Theory, Second Edition, Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  43. Brugger, Winfried. 1987a. Grundrechte und Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  44. Brugger, Winfried. 1987b. Verfassungsgerichtspolitik à la USA, In Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik, Heft 2, 52-61. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  45. Brugger, Winfried. 1994a. Verfassungsinterpretation in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, In Jahrbuch des Öffentlichen Rechts (NF42), 573-593. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  46. Brugger, Winfried. 1994b. Legal Interpretation, Schools of Jurisprudence, and Anthropology: Some Remarks From a German Point of View, In American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 42, 395-421. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  47. Brugger, Winfried. 2001. Einführung in das öffentliche Recht der USA, 2. Auflage, München: Beck Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  48. Brugger, Winfried, Publikationen (Stand: Juli 2012), https://www.jura.uni-heidelberg.de/borowski/brugger/publikationen.html . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  49. Brenner, Saul/Whitmeyer, Joseph M. 2009. Strategy on the United States Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  50. Bungert, Hartwin. 1992. Zeitgenössische Strömungen in der amerikanischen Verfassungsinterpretation. In Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts, Bd. 117, 71-99. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  51. Calabresi, Steven G. 2006. „A Shining City on A Hill“: American Exceptionalism and the Supreme Court’s Practice on Relying on Foreign Law, In Boston University Law Review, Vol. 86, 1335-1414. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  52. Calabresi, Steven G. 2007. Originalism: The Quarter-Century of Debate, Washington DC: Regnery Publishing. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  53. Calleros, Charles R. 2002. Legal Method and Writing (4th ed.), New York: Aspen Law & Business. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  54. Caplan, Lincoln. 2016. American Justice 2016 – The Political Supreme Court, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  55. Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2010. The Conservative Assault on the Constitution, New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  56. Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2011. Constitutional Law – Principles and Policies (4th ed.), New York: Wolters Kluwer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  57. Clayton, Cornell W. 1999. The Supreme Court and Political Jurisprudence: New and Old Institutionalism. In Supreme Court Decision-Making – New Institutionalist Approaches, Eds. Cornell W. Clayton/Howard Gillman, 15-41, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  58. Corwin, Edward S. (Ed.) 1953. The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, Washington: United States Government Printing Office, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  59. http://library.umac.mo/ebooks/b28029744.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  60. Coyle, Marcia. 2013. The Roberts Court and the Struggle for the Constitution, New York: Simon & Schuster. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  61. Cross, Frank B. 2013. The Failed Promise of Originalism, Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  62. Currie, David P. 1985. The Constitution in the Supreme Court. The First Hundred Years. 1789-1888. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  63. Currie, David P. 1990. The Constitution in the Supreme Court. The Second Century. 1888-1986. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  64. Dernbach, John C./Singleton II, Richard V./Wharton, Cathleen S./Ruhtenberg, Joan M./Wasson, Catherine J. 2007. A Practical Guide to Legal Writing & Legal Methode, (Third Ed.), Wolters Kluwer Law & Business – New York: Aspen Publishers. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  65. Dorf, Michael C. 1998. Foreword: The Limits of Socratic Deliberation. In Harvard Law Review, Vol. 112, 4-83. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  66. Dreyer, Michael. 1994. Recht und Politik – Die Geschichte des amerikanischen Supreme Courts. In Historische Mitteilungen, 7. Jahrgang, 1994, 161-209. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  67. Dreyer, Michael. 2004. Der Supreme Court in der deutschen politikwissenschaftlichen Forschung. In Amerikaforschung in Deutschland – Themen und Institutionen der Politikwissenschaft nach 1945, Eds. Michael Dreyer/Markus Lang/Markus Kaim, 83-101, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  68. Dreyer, Michael. 2015. What ‚liberal judges‘? Der Supreme Court als Bollwerk gegen des Progressivismus. In Always on the Defensive? Progressive Bewegung und progressive Politik in den USA in der Ära Obama, Eds. Michael Dreyer et alia, 89-112, Trier: Akademischer Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  69. Dreyer, Michael. 2016. Obama und die dritte Gewalt: Eine verfrühte Bilanz? In Die USA am Ende der Präsidentschaft Barack Obamas – Eine erste Bilanz, Eds. Winand Gellner/Patrick Horst, 225-244, Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  70. Dreyer, Michael/Fröhlich, Nils. 2016. Der US-Supreme Court: Hüter der Verfassung oder Interpret der Gegenwart? In Handbuch Politik USA, Eds. Christian Lammert/Markus Sievert/Boris Vormann, 155-179, Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  71. Driver, Justin. 2012. The Constitutional Conservatism of the Warren Court, In California Law Review, Vol. 100, 1101-1168, http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7946&context=journal_articles . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  72. Dworkin, Ronald. 1972. A Special Supplement: The Jurisprudence of Richard Nixon, In The New York Review of Books, May 4, 1972, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1972/may/04/a-special-supplement-the-jurisprudence-of-richard-/?pagination=false . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  73. Dworkin, Ronald. 1978. Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  74. Dworkin, Ronald. 1986a. A Matter of Principle, Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  75. Dworkin, Ronald, 1986b. Law’s Empire, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  76. Dworkin, Ronald. 1996. Freedom’s Law – The Moral Reading of the American Constitution, New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  77. Dworkin, Ronald. 1997. Comment, In A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Eds. Antonin Scalia/Amy Gutman, 115-127, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  78. Dworkin, Ronald. 2007. The Supreme Court Phalanx, In The New York Review of Books, September 27, 2007, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/sep/27/the-supreme-court-phalanx/ . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  79. Ely, John Hart. 1980. Democracy and Distrust – A Theory of Judicial Review, Camdridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  80. Epstein, Lee/Knight, Jack. 1998. The Choices Justices Make, Washington DC: CQ Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  81. Epstein, Lee/Walker, Thomas G. 2012. Constitutional Law for a Changing America – A Short Course, Fifth Edition, Washington DC: CQ Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  82. Epstein, Lee/Segal, Jeffrey A./Spaeth, Harold J./Walker, Thomas G. 2012. The Supreme Court Compendium – Data, Decisions, and Developments, 5th Edition, Washington DC: CQ Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  83. Epstein, Lee/Martin, Andrew D. 2014. An Introduction to Empirical Legal Research, New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  84. Epstein, Richard A. 1985. Takings – Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  85. Epstein, Richard A. 2011. Design for Liberty – Private Property, Public Administration, and the Rule of Law, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  86. Euler, Herbert. 2001. Interpretation der amerikanischen Verfassung durch die Critical Legal Studies Bewegung, Dissertation, Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  87. Fallon, Richard H. 1997. Foreword: Implementing the Constitution. In Harvard Law Review, Vol. 111, 56-152. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  88. Farber, Daniel A./Sherry Suzanna. 2002. Desperately Seeking Certainty – The Misguided Quest for Constitutional Foundations, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  89. Ferejohn, John E. 2002. Constitutional Review in a Global Context. In Legislation and Public Policy, Vol. 6, 49-59, http://www.nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/John-E-Ferejohn-Constitutional-Review-in-the-Global-Context.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  90. Fikentscher, Wolfgang. 1975. Methoden des Rechts in vergleichender Darstellung, Bd. II, Anglo-amerikanischer Rechtskreis, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  91. Fisher, Louis/Adler, David Gray. 2007. American Constitutional Law, Seventh Edition, Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  92. Fisher III, William W./Horwitz, Morton J./Reed, Thomas A. (Eds.). 1993. American Legal Realism, New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  93. Fishman, Joshua B./Law, David S., 2009. What Is Judicial Ideology, and How Should We Measure It? In Journal of Law & Policy, Vol. 29, 133-214, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121228 . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  94. Fleming, James E. 2012. Living Originalism and Living Constitutionalism as Moral Readings of the American Constitution. In Boston University Law Review, Vol. 92, 1171-1185, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  95. http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/fleming_000.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  96. Fraenkel, Ernst. 1976 [1960]. Das amerikanische Regierungssystem – Eine politologische Analyse, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  97. Friedman, Lawrence M. 2002. The Rehnquist Court: Some More or Less Historical Comments, In The Rehnquist Court – A Retrospective, 143- 158, Ed. Martin H. Belsky, New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  98. Garvey, John H./Aleinikoff, T. Alexander. 1994. Modern Constitutional Theory: A Reader – Third Edition, St. Paul, MI: West Publishing Co. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  99. Gates, John B./Phelps, Glenn A. 1996. Intentionalism in Constitutional Opinions. In Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 49, 245-261. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  100. George, Tracey E./Epstein, Lee. 1991. On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making. In American Political Science Review, Vol. 86, 323-337. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  101. Gillman, Howard. 1999. The Court as an Idea, Not a Building (or a Game): Interpretative Institutionalism and the Analysis of Supreme Court Decision-Making, In Supreme Court Decision-Making – New Institutionalist Approaches, Eds. Cornell W. Clayton/Howard Gillman, 65-87, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  102. Gizzi, Michael C./Curtis, Craig R. 2016. The Fourth Amendment in Flux: The Roberts Court, Crime Control, and Digital Privacy, Lawrence, KA: University of Kansas Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  103. Glendon, Mary Ann. 1997. Comment, In A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Eds. Antonin Scalia/Amy Gutmann, 95-114, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  104. Goldfarb, Dennis J. 2005. The American Constitution and the Debate over Orginalism, New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  105. Graglia, Lino A. 1990. How the Constitution Disappeared, The Constitution of the United States: Contemporary Ratification, In Interpreting the Constitution – The Debate over Original Intent, 35-50, Ed. Jack N. Rakove, Boston MA: Northeastern University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  106. Graglia, Lino A. 1999. Jaffa’s Quarrel with Bork: Religious Belief Masquerading as Constitutional Argument. In Storm Over the Constitution, Ed. Harry V. Jaffa, 127-135, New York: Lexington Books. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  107. Green, Craig. 2009. An Intellectual History of Judicial Activism, Emory Law Journal, Vol. 58, 1195-1264, http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/elj/58/58.5/Green.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  108. Greenhouse, Linda. 1998. Lewis Powell, Crucial Centrist Justice, The New York Times, August 26, 1998, https://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/26/us/lewis-powell-crucial-centrist-justice-dies-at-90.html . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  109. Gutzman, Kevin R. C. 2012. Misjudging Rehnquist, October 2, 2012, In The American Conservative, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/misjudging-rehnquist/ . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  110. Haberman, Maggie, Robert Bork for Mitt Romney, In Politico, 8/2/2011, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60488.html . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  111. Hall, Mark A./Wright Ronald F. 2008. Systematic Content Analysis of Judicial Opinions. In California Law Review, Vol. 96, 63-122, http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=californialawreview . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  112. Hansford, Thomas G./Spriggs II, James F. 2006. The Politics of Precedent on the U.S.Supreme Court, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, Princeton. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  113. Harvey, Anna. 2008. What Makes a Judgment 'Liberal'? Coding Bias in the United States Supreme Court Judicial Database, Paper Presented on the 3rd Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, New York, September 12-13, 2008, 1-42. Access via Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1120970## . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  114. Hein, Stefan/Ewert, Stefan. 2018. Die Politisierung der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit. Eine ideengeschichtliche und systematische Begriffskonstruktion. In Unschärferelationen – Konstruktionen der Differenz von Politik und Recht, 103-128, Eds. Jörn Knobloch/Thorsten Schlee, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  115. Herrmann, Dietrich. 2002a. Integration durch Neutralität? Der amerikanische Supreme Court und der Konflikt um die Religion. In Integration durch Verfassung, 375-397, Ed. Hans Vorländer, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  116. Herrmann, Dietrich, 2002b. Der amerikanische Supreme Court und die Prinzipien von Original Intent und Stare Decisis, In Dauer durch Wandel – Institutionelle Ordnungen zwischen Verstetigung und Transformation, 131-144, Eds. Stephan Müller/Gary S. Schaal/Claudia Tiersch, Köln: Böhlau Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  117. Heun, Werner. 1991. Original Intent und Wille des historischen Verfassungsgebers – Zur Problematik einer Maxime im amerikanischen und deutschen Verfassungsrecht. In Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts (Bd. 116), 185-209. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  118. Heun, Werner. 2008. Originalism als Interpretationsmethode im U.S.-amerikanischen Verfassungsrecht. In Verfassungsänderung, Verfassungswandel, Verfassungsinterpretation, 233-245, Ed. Rainer Wahl, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  119. Hirschl, Ran. 2018. Verfassungsrecht und vergleichende Politikwissenschaft – an den Grenzen der Disziplinen. In Die Grenzen der Verfassung, 15-29, Eds. Michael Hein/Felix Petersen/Silvia von Steinsdorff, Baden-Baden: Nomos, https://www.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/users/rhirschl/sonderdruckhirschl2018.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  120. Hoffer, Peter Charles/Hull Hoffer, Williamjames/Hull, N.E.H. 2007. The Supreme Court – An Essential History, Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kansas. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  121. Horwitz, Morton J. 1993. Foreword: The Constitution of Change: Legal Fundamentality Without Fundamentalism. In Harvard Law Review, Vol. 107, 32-117. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  122. Howard, Robert M./Segal, Jeffrey A. 2002. An Original Look at Originalism. In Law & Society Review, Vol. 36, 113-137. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  123. Höreth, Marcus. 2008. Die Selbstautorisierung des Agenten – Der Europäische Gerichtshof im Vergleich zum U.S. Supreme Court, Baden Baden: Nomos Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  124. Höreth, Marcus. 2010. Der US Supreme Court als Agent des Verfassungswillens des Volkes?, In Die hybride Republik – Die Federalist Papers und die politische Moderne, Ed. Roland Lhotta, 127-150, Baden Baden: Nomos Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  125. Jaffa, Harry V. 1994. What Were the „Original Intentions” of the Framers of the Constitution? In Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution – A Disputed Question, Harry V. Jaffa/Bruce Ledewitz/Robert L. Stone/George Anastaplo (Eds.), 13-54, Washington DC: Regnery Gateway. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  126. Jackson, Vicki C. 2006. „Constitutions as „Living Trees“? Comparative Constitutional Law and Interpretive Methods, In Fordham Law Review, Vol. 75, 921-960, http://fordhamlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/Vol_75/Jackson_November.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  127. Kahn, Ronald/Kersch, Ken I. 2006. Supreme Court Decision Making and American Political Development. In The Supreme Court and American Political Development, Eds. Ronald Kahn/Ken I. Kersch, 443-463, Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kansas. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  128. Kahn, Ronald/Kersch, Ken I.. 2006. Introduction, In The Supreme Court and American Political Development, Ronald Kahn/Ken I. Kersch (Eds.), 1-30, Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kansas, Lawrence. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  129. Keck, Thomas M. 2004. The Most Activist Supreme Court in History – The Road to Modern Judicial Conservatism, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  130. Kendall, Doug/Lee, Mei-Wah. 2013. At 80, Justice Ginsburg emerges as the court’s new originalist. In National Constitution Center/Yahoo News, August 5, 2013, http://news.yahoo.com/81-justice-ginsburg-emerges-court-originalist-153010035.html . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  131. Kirchheimer, Otto. 1962. Prinzipien der Verfassungsinterpretation in den Vereinigten Staaten. In Jahrbuch des Öffentlichen Rechts (NF 11), 93-109. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  132. Kmiec, Keenan D. 2004. The Origin and Current Meaning of Judicial Activism, In California Law Review, Vol. 92, 1441-1477, http://www.constitution.org/lrev/kmiec/judicial_activism.htm . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  133. Knowles, Helen J. 2009. The Tie Goes to Freedom – Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Liberty, New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  134. Kommers, Donald P./Finn, John E./Jacobsohn, Gary J. 2004. American Constitutional Law – Governmental Powers and Democracy. Volume 1, Second Edition, New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  135. Krakau, Knud. 1988. Der Supreme Court: Seine Funktion und Problematik im gewaltenteilenden demokratischen Staat, Working Paper No. 13/1988, John F. Kennedy-Institut für Nordamerikastudien, Berlin, http://www.jfki.fu-berlin.de/research/publications/workingpapers/workingpaper013.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  136. Krakau, Knud. 2006. Hate Speech under the Constitution, In Atlantic Passages – Constitution – Immigration – Internationalization; In Memoriam Willi Paul Adams, Andreas Etges/Ursula Lehmkuhl (Eds.), 87-104, Berlin: Lit-Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  137. Kriele, Martin. 1967. Theorie der Rechtsgewinnung – entwickelt am Problem der Verfassungsinterpretation, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  138. Kriele, Martin. 1990 (1965). Der Supreme Court im Verfassungssystem der USA – Ein kritischer Bericht über neuere amerikanische Literatur (1965). In Recht, Vernunft, Wirklichkeit, 546-568, Ed. Martin Kriele, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  139. Kriele, Martin. 1990 (1976). „Judicial self-restraint“ – Recht und Politik in der Verfassungsrechtsprechung (1976), In Recht, Vernunft, Wirklichkeit, 586-603, Ed. Martin Kriele, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  140. Kritzer, Herbert M./Richards, Mark J. 2010. Taking and Testing Jurisprudential Regimes Seriously: A Response to Lax and Rader, In The Journal of Politics, Vol. 72, 285-288. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  141. Küpper, Stefan. 2009. Santería−- von afrikanischen Orishas über kubanische Heilige zur amerikanischen „Lifestyle-Kultur“, Hausarbeit im Rahmen der Ersten Staatsprüfung für das Lehramt an Gymnasien, Universität Potsdam, http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2009/3920/pdf/kuepper_examen.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  142. Law professor apologizes for plagiarism in 1985 book. 2004. In The Washington Times, September 28, 2004, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/28/20040928-111006-3358r/?page=all . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  143. Lax, Jeffrey R./Rader, Kelly T. 2010a. Legal Constraints on Supreme Court Decision Making: Do Jurisprudential Regimes Exist?, In The Journal of Politics, Vol. 72, 273-284. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  144. Lax, Jeffrey R./Rader, Kelley T. 2010b. The Three Prongs of a Jurisprudential Regimes Test: A Responde to Kritzer and Richards, In The Journal of Politics, Vol. 72, 289-291. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  145. Levy, Leonard W. 1988. Original Intent and the Framers‘ Constitution, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  146. Lindquist, Stefanie A./Cross, Frank B. 2009. Measuring Judicial Activism, New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  147. Liptak, Adam. 2006. Few Glimmers of How Conservative Alito is, In The New York Times, January 13, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/13/politics/politicsspecial1/13legal.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0 . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  148. Lithwick, Dahlia. 2006. Justice Grover Versus Justice Oscar – Scalia and Breyer sell very different constitutional worldviews. In Slate Magazine, December 6, 2006, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2006/12/justice_grover_versus_justice_oscar.html . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  149. Little, Rory K. 2009. Heller and Constitutional Interpretation: Originalism’s Last Gap, In Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 60, 1415-1430, http://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1426&context=faculty_scholarship . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  150. Llewellyn, Karl N. 1934. The Constitution as an Institution, In Columbia Law Review, Vol. 34, 1-40. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  151. Loewenstein, Karl. 1959. Verfassungsrecht und Verfassungspraxis der Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  152. Lofgren, Charles A. 1990. The Original Understanding of Original Intent?, In Interpreting the Constitution – The Debate over Original Intent, Ed. Jack N. Rakove, 117-150, Boston MA: Northeastern University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  153. Long, Wendy E./Presser, Steven B. 2005. Who Could Win Every Senator’s Vote?, Debate Club, In Legal Affairs – The Magazin at the Intersection of Law and Life, June 20, 2005, http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_cj20605.msp . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  154. Maltz, Earl M. (Ed.). 2003. Rehnquist Justice – Understanding the Court Dynamic, Lawrence, KA: University of Kansas Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  155. Maltzman, Forrest/Spriggs II, James F./Wahlbeck, Paul J. 1999. Strategy and Judicial Choice: New Institutionalist Approaches to Supreme Court Decision-Making, In Supreme Court Decision-Making – New Institutionalist Approaches, Eds. Cornell W. Clayton/Howard Gillman, 43-63, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  156. Maltzman, Forrest/Spriggs II, James F./Wahlbeck, Paul J. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court – The Collegial Game, New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  157. Marshall, Thomas R. 2008. Public Opinion and the Rehnquist Court, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  158. Maveety, Nancy. 2008. Queen's Court: Judicial Power in the Rehnquist Era, Lawrence, KA: University of Kansas Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  159. McBain, Howard Lee, 1948 [1927]. The Living Constitution – A Consideration of the Realities and Legends of our Fundamental Law, New York: The Macmillan Company. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  160. McConnell, Michael W. 1987. Review: Federalism: Evaluating the Founders’ Design, In University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 54, 1482-1512. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  161. McConnell, Michael W. 1992a. Religious Participation in Public Programs: Religious Freedom as a Crossroads, In University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 59, 115-194. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  162. McConnell, Michael W. 1992b. Accomodation of Religion: An Update and a Response to Critics, In The George Washington Law Review, Vol. 60, 1992, 685-742. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  163. McConnell, Michael W. 2001. Religious Freedom, Separation of Powers, and the Reversal of Roles, In Brigham Young University Law Review, Vol. 27, 611-617. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  164. McConnell, Michael W. 2006. Book Review – Active Liberty: A Progressive Alternative to Textualism and Originalism?, In Harvard Law Review, Vol. 119, 2387-2417. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  165. McConnell, Michael W., CV, http://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/person/166482/doc/slspublic/McConnell%20CV%201.16.13.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  166. Meese, Edwin III. 1985. Attorney general Edwin Meese III before the American Bar Association, July 9, 1985, Washington DC, https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/the-great-debate-attorney-general-ed-meese-iii-july-9-1985 . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  167. Meese, Edwin III. 1990. Interpreting the Constitution, In Interpreting the Constitution – The Debate over Original Intent, Ed. Jack N. Rakove, 13-21, Boston MA: Northeastern University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  168. Muncy, Mitchell S. (Ed.). 1997. The End of Democracy? – The Judicial Usurpation of Politics, Dallas: Spence Publishing Company. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  169. Murphy, Bruce Allen. 2014. Scalia: A Court of One. New York: Simon & Schuster. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  170. Murphy, Walter. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  171. Neumann Jr., Richard K. 2005. Legal Reasoning and Legal Writing – Structure, Strategy, and Style, New York: Aspen Publishers. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  172. Nowak, John E./Rotunda, Ronald D. 2010. Constitutional Law, Eighth Edition, ST. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  173. Oberkofler, Anja. 2001. Kritische Ansätze im amerikanischen Rechtsdenken, In UTOPIE kreativ, Heft 132, Oktober 2001, 926-934, http://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Utopie_kreativ/132/oberkofler132.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  174. O’Neill, Jonathan. 2005. Originalism in American Law and Politics – A Constitutional History, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  175. Parlapiano, Alicia/Liptak, Adam/Bowers, Jeremy. 2015. The Roberts Court’s Surprising Move Leftward, In The New York Times, June 29, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/23/upshot/the-roberts-courts-surprising-move-leftward.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0 . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  176. Paus, Martin. 2015. Der U.S. Supreme Court als 'Hüter des Kongresses'?− Das checks and balances-System im Bereich der auswärtigen Gewalt vor dem Hintergrund des Ansatzes des BVerfG, Baden Baden: Nomos Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  177. Posner, Richard A. 2011. Economic Analysis of Law, Eighth Edition, New York: Wolters Kluwer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  178. Powell, H. Jefferson. 1990. The Original Understanding of Original Intent, In Interpreting the Constitution – The Debate over Original Intent, Ed. Jack N. Rakove, 53-115, Boston MA: Northeastern University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  179. Powell, Michael. 2008. Obama Disagrees with Supreme Court Decision on Death Penalty, In The New York Times – The Caucus (Blog), June 25, 2008, https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/obama-disagrees-with-supreme-court-decision/ . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  180. Primus, Richard. 2009. The Limits of Interpretivism, In Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 32, 159-177, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  181. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1520&context=articles . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  182. Pritchett, C. Herman. 1948. The Roosevelt Court – A Study in Judicial Politics and Values 1937-1947, New York: The Macmillan Company. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  183. Rakove, Jack N. 1990. Mr. Meese, Meet Mr. Madison, In Interpreting the Constitution – The Debate over Original Intent, Ed. Jack N. Rakove, 179-194, Boston MA: Northeastern University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  184. Rakove, Jack N. 1997. Original Meanings – Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  185. Rehder, Britta. 2011. Rechtsprechung als Politik – Der Beitrag des Bundesarbeitsgerichts zur Entwicklung der Arbeitsbeziehungen in Deutschland, Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_book/mpifg_bd_74.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  186. Richards, Mark J./Kritzer, Herbert M. 2002. Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making. In American Political Science Review, Vol. 96, 305-320. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  187. Riess, Cornelia B. 1993. Reagans Richter: Der Supreme Court in der Innenpolitik der 80er-Jahre, Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  188. Rhode, David W./Spaeth, Harold J. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  189. Rosen, Jeffrey. 2007. The Dissenter – Justice John Paul Stevens, In The New York Times, September 23, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html?_r=0 . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  190. Rossum, Ralph A. 2006. Antonin Scalia’s Jurisprudence – Text and Tradition, Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kanas. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  191. Rossum, Ralph A. 2013. Understanding Clarence Thomas – The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Restoration, Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kansas. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  192. Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. 2010. Rule 37, In Index to Rules, http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2010RulesoftheCourt.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  193. Savage, Charlie. 2010. Leaked: Obama Mentor’s Blunt Advise on Court Choices, In The New York Times – The Caucus (Blog), October 28, 2010, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/leaked-obama-mentors-blunt-advice-on-court-choices/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1 . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  194. Schauer, Frederick/Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. 1996. The Philosophy of Law – Classic and Contemporary Readings with Commentary, Fort Wort, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  195. Schäfer, Martina. 2005. Vom liberalen zum konservativen judicial „activism”? Die Entwicklung der amerikanischen Verfassungsrechtsprechung in den letzten fünfzig Jahren, In Zeitschrift für Politik, 52 Jahrgang, 273- 296. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  196. Schlink, Bernhard. 1989. Die Entthronung der Staatsrechtswissenschaft durch die Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit, In Der Staat, Bd. 11, 160-172. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  197. Schor, Miguel. 2011. Contextualizing the Debate between Originalism and the Living Constitution. In Drake Law Review, Vol. 59, 961-971, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2165094 . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  198. Schwartz, Herman (Ed.). 2002. The Rehnquist-Court – Judicial Activism on the Rights, New York: Hill and Wand. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  199. Segal, Jeffrey A. 2012. Perceived Qualifications and Ideology of Supreme Court Nominees, 1937-2012, Stony Brook University, http://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/polisci/jsegal/QualTable.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  200. Segal, Jeffrey A./Spaeth, Harold J. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited, New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  201. Shell, Kurt L. 2007. Der Oberste Gerichtshof, In Regierungssystem der USA, Eds. Wolfgang Jäger/Christoph M. Haas/Wolfgang Welz, 3. aktualisierte und überarbeitete Auflage, 171-184, München: Oldenburg Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  202. Sigwart, Hans-Jörg. 2010. We and the People: Selbstverständnis und politische Rolle des U. S. Supreme Court, In Zeitschrift für Politik, 57. Jahrgang, 363-388. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  203. Silverstein, Gordon. 2009. Law’s Allure – How Law Shapes, Constrains, Saves, and Kills Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  204. Smith, Christopher E./McCall, Michael A. 2011. Introduction, In The Rehnquist Court and Criminal Justice, Eds. Christoph E. Smiths/Christina DeJong/Michael A. McCall, 1-15, New York: Lexington Books. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  205. Smith, Rogers M. 1988. Political Jurisprudence, the „New Institutionalism”, and the Future of Public Law, In American Political Science Review, Vol. 82, 89-108. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  206. Solum, Lawrence B. 2009. District of Columbia v. Heller and Originalism, In Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 103, 923-981, http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1833&context=facpub . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  207. Solum, Lawrence. 2010. Legal Theory Lexicon: Rules, Standards, and Principles, December 19, 2010, http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2010/12/legal-theory-lexicon-rules-standards-and-principles.html . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  208. Sowell, Thomas. 1989. Judicial Activism Reconsidered, The Hoover Institution – Stanford University, 1-40, http://www.tsowell.com/Judicialact.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  209. Spaeth, Harold J./Segal, Jeffrey A. 1999. Majority Rule or Minority Will – Adherence to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court, New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  210. Spaeth, Harold/Epstein, Lee/Ruger, Ted/Whittington, Keith/Segal, Jeffrey/Martin, Andrew D. 2013a. The Supreme Court Database, Version 2013, http://supremecourtdatabase.org. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  211. Spaeth, Harold/Epstein, Lee/Ruger, Ted/Whittington, Keith/Segal, Jeffrey/Martin, Andrew D. 2013b. Supreme Court Data Base Codebook brick_2013_01, http://scdb.wustl.edu/_brickFiles/2013_01/SCDB_2013_01_codebook.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  212. Steinbeis, Maximilian (Hrsg.), Verfassungsblog – On Matters Constitutional, https://verfassungsblog.de/blogposts/ . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  213. Stevens, William K. 1987. The Constitution’s 200 Years Hailed Where It All Started, In The New York Times, May 24, 1987, https://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/24/us/the-constitution-s-200-years-hailed-where-it-all-started.html?src=pm . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  214. Strauss, David A. 2008. Why Conservatives Shouldn’t Be Originalists, In Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 31, 969-976. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  215. Strauss, David A. 2010. The Living Constitution, New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  216. Sullivan, Kathleen M. 1992. Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards. In Harvard Law Review, Vol. 106, 22- 123. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  217. Sunstein, Cass R. 1996. Leaving Things Undecided, In Harvard Law Review, Vol. 110, 4-101. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  218. Tamanaha, Brian Z. 2006. Law as a Means to an End – Threat to the Rule of Law, Cambridge; MA: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  219. Tamanaha, Brian Z. 2010. Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide – The Role of Politics in Judging. Princeton, NJ: University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  220. The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, About us, https://fedsoc.org/about-us . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  221. Tribe, Laurence H. 2000. American Constitutional Law, Third Edition, Volume One, New York: Foundation Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  222. Tribe, Laurence H. 2008. The Invisible Constitution, New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  223. Tribe, Laurence/Matz, Joshua. 2014. Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution, New York: Henry Holt and Company. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  224. Tushnet, Mark V. 1999. Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  225. Tushnet, Mark V. 2005. A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law, New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  226. Tushnet, Mark V. 2007. The United States: Eclecticismin the Service of Pragmatism, In Interpreting Constitutions – A Comparative Study, Ed. Jeffrey D. Goldsworthy, 7-54, New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  227. Tushnet, Mark V. 2013. In the Balance – Law and Politics on the Roberts Court, New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  228. UChicago News, David A. Strauss, http://news.uchicago.edu/profile/david-strauss . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  229. Updike Toler, Lorianne/Cecere, J. Carl/Willett, Don. 2012. Pre-Originalism, In Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 36, 277-354, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  230. http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/36_1_277_CecereToler.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  231. von Brünneck, Alexander. 1992. Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in den westlichen Demokratien – Ein systematischer Verfassungsvergleich, Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  232. von Hoff, Stefanie. 2008. Die Rolle des US-Supreme Court im Prozess der Verfassungsänderung in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  233. Vorländer, Hans. 1987. Kontinuität und Legitimität der Verfassung der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika 1787-1987, In Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts (NF), Bd. 36, 451-488. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  234. Vorländer, Hans. 2006. Deutungsmacht – Die Macht der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit. In Deutungsmacht der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit, Hrsg. Hans Vorländer, 9-33, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  235. Webley, Lisa. 2010. Qualitative Approaches to Empirical Legal Research, In The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research, Eds. Peter Cane/Herbert M. Kritzer, 926-951, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  236. Wechsler, Herbert. 1959. Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law, In Harvard Law Review, Vol. 73, 1-35. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  237. Whittington, Keith E. 1999. Constitutional Interpretation – Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review, Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  238. Whittington, Keith E. 2011. The New Originalism, In The Association of American Law Schools, 109-119, http://www.aals.org/profdev/constitutional/whittington.pdf . [nicht mehr online verfügbar] Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  239. Whittington, Keith E., CV, https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/kewhitt/files/vita_short_whittington.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  240. Wittmann, Philipp. 2014a. Der Schutz der Privatsphäre vor staatlichen Überwachungsmaßnahmen durch die US-amerikanische Bundesverfassung. Eine Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Schutzes der Privatsphäre in der Öffentlichkeit, Baden Baden: Nomos Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  241. Wittmann, Philipp. 2014b. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) und die effektive Garantie der Selbstbelastungsfreiheit – zwei Mythen des amerikanischen Verfassungsrechts?, In Juristenzeitung (JZ), 69. Jahrgang,105-111. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  242. Wu, Kevin J. 2012. Laurence H. Tribe, In The Harvard Crimson, May 21, 2012, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/5/21/laurence-tribe-harvard-law/?page=1 . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  243. Yarbrough, Tinsley E. 2005. David Hackett Souter – Traditional Republican on the Rehnquist Court, New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  244. Yoo, John. 2012. Chief Justice Roberts and His Apologists, In The Wall Street Journal, June 29, 2012, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303561504577496520011395292 . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  245. Youcanwritein, http://www.youcanwritein.com/nominated-write-in-candidates.php . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  246. Young, Ernest A. 2008. The Constitution Outside the Constitution, In Yale Law Review, Vol. 117, 408-473. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  247. Alito, Samuel A./Kmiec, Douglas W./Phillips, Carter G./Starr, Kenneth W. 2008. The Inaugural William French Smith Memorial Lecture: A Look at Supreme Court Advocacy with Justice Samuel Alito, In Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 35, 465-492. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  248. Alito, Samuel A./McConnell, Michael W./Starr, Kenneth W./Dellinger, Walter E./Kmiec, Douglas W. 2009. The Justices Speak: Reflection: The Second Conversation with Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr: Lawyering and the Craft of Judicial Opinion Writing, In Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 37, 33-62. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  249. Bader Ginsburg, Ruth. 1978. Sex Equality and the Constitution, In Tulane Law Review, Vol. 52, 451-475. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  250. Bader Ginsburg, Ruth. 1985. Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, In North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 63, 375-386. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  251. Bader Ginsburg, Ruth. 1992. Speaking in a Judicial Voice, In New York University Law Review, Vol. 67, 1185-1209. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  252. Bader Ginsburg, Ruth. 1997a. Constitutional Adjudication in the United States as a Means of Advancing the Equal Stature of Men and Women under the Law, In Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 26, 263-271. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  253. Bader Ginsburg, Ruth. 1997b. An Overview of Court Review for Constitutionality in the United States, In Louisiana Law Review, Vol. 57, 1019-1027. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  254. Bader Ginsburg, Ruth. 2003. Workways of the Supreme Court, Thomas Jefferson Law Review (San Diego), Vol. 25, 517-527. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  255. Bader Ginsburg, Ruth. 2004. Looking Beyond Our Borders: The Value of Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication, In Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 22, 2004, 329-337. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  256. Bader Ginsburg, Ruth. 2007. James P. White Lecture on Legal Education, In Indiana Law Review, Vol. 40, 479-489. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  257. Bader Ginsburg, Ruth/Greenhouse, Linda. 2013. A Conversation with Justice Ginsburg, In The Yale Law Journal Online, Vol. 122, 283-300. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  258. Blackmun, Harry A. 1985. Article: Section 1983 and the Federal Protection of Individual Rights – Will the Statute remain alive or fade away? In New York University Law Review, Vol. 60, 1-29. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  259. Blackmun, Harry A. 1994. The Supreme Court and the Law of Nations, In Yale Law Journal, Vol. 104, 39-49. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  260. Blackmun, Harry A. 2012. From the Bag: Notes on a somewhat disappointing Book − Reviewing Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process (Yale University press 1921), In Green Bag Journal of Law, Vol. 15, 204-206 (Original Manuscript Box 1374 of the Papers of Harry A. Blackmun). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  261. Brennan, William J. 1986. The Bill of Rights and the States: The Revival of State Constitutions as Guardians of Individual Rights, In New York University Law Review, Vol. 61, 535-553. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  262. Brennan, William J. 1990. The Constitution of the United States: Contemporary Ratification, In Interpreting the Constitution – The Debate over Original Intent, Ed. Jack N. Rakove, 22-34, Boston MA: Northeastern University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  263. Breyer, Stephen G. 2008 [2005]. Active Liberty – Interpreting a Democratic Constitution, New York: Oxford University Press.. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  264. Breyer, Stephen G. 2010. America’s Supreme Court: Making Democracy Work, New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  265. Kagan, Elena. 1993. Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R. A. V., In University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 60, 878-902. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  266. Kagan, Elena/Barron, David J. 2001. Chevron's Nondelegation Doctrine, In The Supreme Court Review, Vol. 2001, 201-265. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  267. Kennedy, Anthony M. 1996: Judicial Ethics and the Rule of Law, In Saint Louis University Law Journal, Vol. 40, 1067-1077. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  268. Kennedy, Anthony M. 2003. Speech Delivered at the American Bar Association Annual Meeting, August 9, 2003, In Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 16, 126ff. [Es sind in der Datenbank keine weiteren Seitenzahlen angeben]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  269. Library of Congress, Supreme Court Nominations. Last Updated: 02/28/2014, http://loc.gov/law/find/court-nominations.php . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  270. Marshall, Thurgood. 1987. Remarks at the Annual Seminar of the San Francisco Patent and Trademark Law Association, May 6, 1987, http://www.thurgoodmarshall.com/speeches/constitutional_speech.htm . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  271. O’Connor, Sandra/Joyce, Craig (Eds.). 2003. The Majesty of the Law – Reflections of a Supreme Court Justice, New York: Random House. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  272. Powell, Lewis F. 1975. Myths and Misconceptions about the Supreme Court, In American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 61, 1975, 1344-1347. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  273. Powell, Lewis F. 1982. Carolene Products Revisited, In Columbia Law Review, Vol. 82, 1087-1092. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  274. Rehnquist, William H. 2006 [1976]. The Notion of a Living Constitution, In Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 29, 401-415, Nachdruck aus: 54 Texas Law Review 693 (1976), Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  275. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  276. Rehnquist, William H. 1990. The Nature of Judicial Interpretation, In Politics and the Constitution – The Nature and Extent of Interpretation, Judith A. Baer (Ed.), 3-8, Washington, D.C.: American Studies Center. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  277. Rehnquist, William H. 1998. All the Laws But One – Civil Liberties in Wartime, New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  278. Rehnquist, William H. 2001. The Supreme Court – Revised and Updated, New York: Vintage Books. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  279. Rehnquist, William H. 2003. Albritton Lecture 2003: The Supreme Court and the Disputed Election of 1876, In Alabama Law Review, Vol. 55, 527-536. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  280. Rehnquist, William H. 2004. Centennial Crisis – The Disputed Election of 1876, New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  281. Roberts, John G. 1993. Article III Limits on Statutory Standing, In Duke Law Journal, Vol. 42, 1219-1232. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  282. Roberts, John G. 2007. William H. Rehnquist: A Remembrance, In Vermont Law Review, Vol. 31, 431-438. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  283. Roberts, John G. 2009. The Justices Speak: Reflection; Thirty-First Annual Pepperdine University School of Law Dinner: Keynote Address, In Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 37, 1-5. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  284. Scalia, Antonin. 1989a. The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, In University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 56, 1175-1188. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  285. Scalia, Antonin. 1989b. Originalism: The Lesser Evil, In University of Cincinnati Law Review, Vol. 57, 849-865. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  286. Scalia, Antonin. 1996. Program V: Commentary, In Saint Louis University Law Journal, Vol. 40, 1119-1122. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  287. Scalia, Antonin/Gutmann, Amy (Eds.). 1997. A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  288. Scalia, Antonin. 1997a. Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of the United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws, In A Matter of Interpretation – Federal Courts and the Law, Antonin Scalia/Amy Gutman (Eds .) 3-47, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  289. Scalia, Antonin. 1997b. Response, In A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Antonin Scalia/Amy Gutman (Eds.), 129-149, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  290. Scalia, Antonin/Garner, Bryan A. 2012. Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, St. Pauls, MN: Thomson/West. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  291. Sotomayor, Sonia. 1996. Returning Majesty To The Law and Politics: A Modern Approach, In Suffolk University Law Review, Vol. 30, 35-51. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  292. Sotomayor, Sonia. 2009. A Latina Judge’s Voice, Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture, UC Berkeley School of Law Symposium, Oct. 26, 2001, From the Archives of La Raza Law Journal, In UC Berkeley News, May 26, 2009, http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  293. Souter, David H. 2010. Harvard University’s 359th Commencement Address, In Harvard Law Review, Vol. 124, 429-436. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  294. Stevens, John Paul. 1992. The Bill of Rights: A Century of Progress, In University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 59, 13-38. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  295. Stevens, John Paul. 1993. The Freedom of Speech, In Yale Law Journal, Vol. 102, 1293-1313. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  296. Stevens, John Paul. 2002. Judicial Activism: Ensuring the Powers and Freedoms Conceived by the Framers for Today’s World, In Chicago Bar Association Record, Vol. 16, 25-33. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  297. Stevens, John Paul. 2012. Kelo, Popularity, and Substantive Due Process, In Alabama Law Review, Vol. 63, 941-954. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  298. Stevens, John Paul. 2013. Originalism and History, University of Georgia Law Review Symposium, Athens, Georgia, November 6, 2013, 1-25, http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/JPS%20Speech%28Georgia%29_11-06-2013.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  299. Supreme Court of the United States. Public Information – Speeches, http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/speeches.aspx . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  300. Thomas, Clarence. 1987. Toward a „Plain Reading“ of the Constitution – The Declaration of Independence in Constitutional Interpretation, In Howard Law Review, Vol. 30, 983-996. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  301. Thomas, Clarence. 1989. The Higher Law Background of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, In Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 12, 63-70. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  302. Thomas, Clarence. 1994. Speech: Cordell Hall Speakers Forum, In Cumberland Law Review, Vol. 25, 611-621. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  303. Thomas, Clarence. 1996. Judging, In Kansas Law Review, Vol. 45, 1-7. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  304. Thomas, Clarence. 2007. My Grandfather’s Son, New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  305. White, Byron R. 1982. Challenges for the U.S. Supreme Court and the Bar: Contemporary Reflections, In Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 51, 275ff. (Es sind keine Seitenzahlen in der Datenbank zu diesem Artikel außer der ersten Seitenzahl angegeben.) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  306. Supreme-Court-Urteile (im Fließtext oder in den dazu gehörigen Fußnoten zitierte) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  307. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  308. Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  309. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  310. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  311. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  312. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  313. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  314. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  315. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  316. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  317. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  318. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  319. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  320. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  321. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  322. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  323. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  324. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  325. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  326. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  327. DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  328. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  329. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  330. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  331. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  332. Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  333. Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  334. Erie v. Pap's A. M. 529 U.S. 277 (2000). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  335. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  336. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  337. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  338. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  339. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  340. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  341. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  342. Kennedy v. Louisiana 554 U.S. 407 (2008). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  343. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  344. Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Election 360 U.S. 45 (1959). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  345. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  346. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  347. Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  348. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  349. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  350. McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  351. McDonald v. Chicago 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  352. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  353. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  354. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S.Ct. 2566 (2012). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  355. New Hampshire v. Maine 532 U.S. 742 (2001). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  356. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  357. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  358. Nike, Inc. v. Kasky 539 U.S. 654 (2003). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  359. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  360. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  361. Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  362. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  363. Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  364. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  365. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  366. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  367. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  368. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  369. Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147 (1939) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  370. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  371. Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  372. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  373. Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  374. Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  375. Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  376. Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  377. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  378. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  379. United States v. Carolene Products Co. 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  380. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  381. United States v. James 478 U.S. 597 (1986). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  382. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  383. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  384. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061
  385. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845298061

Similar publications

from the series "Politik und Recht"
Cover of book: Zwischen politischer und rechtlicher Verfassung
Monograph No access
Henning Schäckelhoff
Zwischen politischer und rechtlicher Verfassung
Cover of book: The Constitutional Court of Turkey
Monograph Full access
Silvia von Steinsdorff, Ece Göztepe, Maria Abad Andrade, Felix Petersen
The Constitutional Court of Turkey
Cover of book: Menschenrechte als Teilhaberechte an politischen Gesellschaften
Monograph No access
Johannes Icking
Menschenrechte als Teilhaberechte an politischen Gesellschaften
Cover of book: Verfassungsgerichtliche Entscheidungsfindung und ihre Folgen
Monograph No access
Maria Abad Andrade
Verfassungsgerichtliche Entscheidungsfindung und ihre Folgen
Cover of book: Kontextualismus
Monograph No access
Andreas Grimmel
Kontextualismus

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via your Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex