Welcome to our book review site go-pdf.online!
You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
Ordinary Meaning
Brian G. Slocum s "Ordinary Meaning "offers an extended legal-linguistic analysis of the eponymous interpretive doctrine. A centuries-old consensus exists among courts and legal scholars that words in legal texts should be interpreted in light of accepted standards of communication. Therefore the questions of what makes some meaning the ordinary one, and how the determinants of ordinary meaning are identified and conceptualized, are of crucial importance to the interpretation of legal texts. Arguing against reliance on acontextual dictionary definitions, "Ordinary Meaning" rigorously explores the contributions that specific context makes to meaning, along with linguistic phenomena such as indexicals and quantifiers. Slocum provides a theory and a robust general framework for how the determinants of ordinary meaning should be identified and developed."
The Nature of Legal Interpretation
"Language shapes and reflects how we think about the world. It engages and intrigues us. Our everyday use of language is quite effortless--we are all experts on our native tongues. Despite this, issues of language and meaning have long flummoxed the judges on whom we depend for the interpretation of our most fundamental legal texts. Should a judge feel confident in defining common words in the texts without the aid of a linguist? How is the meaning communicated by the text determined? Should the communicative meaning of texts be decisive, or at least influential? ... [Contributors] argue that the meaning of language is crucial to the interpretation of legal texts, such as statutes, constitutions, and contracts. Accordingly ... analysis of language from linguists, philosophers, and legal scholars should influence how courts interpret legal texts."--
Ordinary Meaning
A legal scholar offers a bold new framework for legal interpretation with this “deep, thoughtful, and useful examination . . . of legal meaning” (William Eskridge, Yale University). Consider a criminal sentencing provision that calls for enhanced punishment if a defendant “uses” a firearm during a drug crime. Has a defendant violated the provision if he trades a gun for drugs? Did he “use” the gun in the intended sense? This sort of question is at the heart of legal interpretation. Legal interpretation typically follows the doctrine of “ordinary meaning” —which is to say that words in legal texts should be interpreted in light of accepted standards of communication. Yet oft...
Modern Statutory Interpretation
Modern Statutory Interpretation is an original, clear, coherent and research-based account of contemporary Australian statutory interpretation. It provides a comprehensive coverage of statutory interpretation law, legislative drafting, the parliamentary process, the modern history of interpretation, sources of doubt, and interpretation techniques.
Problems of Normativity, Rules and Rule-Following
This book focuses on the problems of rules, rule-following and normativity as discussed within the areas of analytic philosophy, linguistics, logic and legal theory. Divided into four parts, the volume covers topics in general analytic philosophy, analytic legal theory, legal interpretation and argumentation, logic as well as AI& Law area of research. It discusses, inter alia, “Kripkenstein’s” sceptical argument against rule-following and normativity of meaning, the role of neuroscience in explaining the phenomenon of normativity, conventionalism in philosophy of law, normativity of rules of interpretation, some formal approaches towards rules and normativity as well as the problem of defeasibility of rules. The aim of the book is to provide an interdisciplinary approach to an inquiry into the questions concerning rules, rule-following and normativity.
Behind the Green Card
Behind the Green Card explodes the innumerable myths and bogeymen that obscure the reality of US immigration policy. Blinded by misguided ''national security interests, '' the United States has codified a series of unworkable and irresponsible laws which make this country weaker, poorer and less secure than ever. Through the elimination of both a huge marketplace and enormous supply of labor, the US struggles to regain economic growth while other developed nations, through sensible immigration policies, forge ahead
Malevolent Legalities
Malevolent Legalities draws upon archival research conducted at the Scalia Papers at the Harvard Law School Historical and Special Collections to examine the influence of Justice Antonin Scalia’s judicial philosophy of “textualist-originalism” on the US Supreme Court’s antidiscrimination jurisprudence. The book focuses on six US Supreme Court cases, organized into two parts. The main argument of the book, grounded in archival and legal materials, is that textualist-originalism makes it lawful for discrimination to be performed through the text, and explicitly seeks to prevent progress by enacting a regime of “static law.” In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Justice Ginsburg remark...
Enticements
Provides a variety of queer, interdisciplinary interventions upon the social and legal regulation of sex, gender, reproduction, and family. In Enticements, an exceptional group of interdisciplinary scholars comes together to contribute to the field of Queer Legal Studies. The essays investigate a wildly proliferating assortment of genders, sexualities, and intimacies, questioning how they have been regulated, criminalized, or privileged by law and other regulatory forces. Enticements expands and expounds on the discipline of queer legal studies. Contributors focus on a wide range of sex/gender regulatory regimes, interrogating the use and abuse of queer history for impact litigation and soci...
Justice Scalia
Justice Antonin Scalia (1936–2016) was the single most important figure in the emergence of the “new originalist” interpretation of the US Constitution, which sought to anchor the court’s interpretation of the Constitution to the ordinary meaning of the words at the time of drafting. For Scalia, the meaning of constitutional provisions and statutes was rigidly fixed by their original meanings with little concern for extratextual considerations. While some lauded his uncompromising principles, others argued that such a rigid view of the Constitution both denies and attempts to limit the discretion of judges in ways that damage and distort our system of law. In this edited collection, leading scholars from law, political science, philosophy, rhetoric, and linguistics look at the ways Scalia framed and stated his arguments. Focusing on rhetorical strategies rather than the logic or validity of Scalia’s legal arguments, the contributors collectively reveal that Scalia enacted his rigidly conservative vision of the law through his rhetorical framing.
