LEADER 03616nam  2200649Ia 450 
001 9910465734603321
005 20200520144314.0
010   $a0-674-06517-4
010   $a0-674-06939-0
024 7 $a10.4159/harvard.9780674065178
035   $a(CKB)2560000000082489
035   $a(OCoLC)794004242
035   $a(CaPaEBR)ebrary10568041
035   $a(SSID)ssj0000654244
035   $a(PQKBManifestationID)11444875
035   $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000654244
035   $a(PQKBWorkID)10661581
035   $a(PQKB)11628344
035   $a(MiAaPQ)EBC3301097
035   $a(DE-B1597)178187
035   $a(OCoLC)840435602
035   $a(DE-B1597)9780674065178
035   $a(Au-PeEL)EBL3301097
035   $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10568041
035   $a(EXLCZ)992560000000082489
100   $a20111005d2012      uy             0
101 0 $aeng
135   $aurcn|||||||||
181   $ctxt
182   $cc
183   $acr
200 10$aAgainst obligation$b[electronic resource] $ethe multiple sources of authority in a liberal democracy /$fAbner S. Greene
210   $aCambridge, Mass. $cHarvard University Press$d2012
215   $a1 online resource (346 p.) 
300   $aBibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph
311   $a0-674-06441-0 
320   $aIncludes bibliographical references (p.303-321) and index.
327   $t Frontmatter -- $tCONTENTS -- $tINTRODUCTION -- $t1. AGAINST POLITICAL OBLIGATION -- $t2. ACCOMMODATING OUR PLURAL OBLIGATIONS -- $t3. AGAINST INTERPRETIVE OBLIGATION TO THE PAST -- $t4. AGAINST INTERPRETIVE OBLIGATION TO THE SUPREME COURT -- $tCONCLUSION -- $tNOTES -- $tBIBLIOGRAPHY -- $tACKNOWLEDGMENTS -- $tINDEX
330   $aDo citizens of a nation such as the United States have a moral duty to obey the law? Do officials, when interpreting the Constitution, have an obligation to follow what that text meant when ratified? To follow precedent? To follow what the Supreme Court today says the Constitution means?These are questions of political obligation (for citizens) and interpretive obligation (for anyone interpreting the Constitution, often officials). Abner Greene argues that such obligations do not exist. Although citizens should obey some laws entirely, and other laws in some instances, no one has put forth a successful argument that citizens should obey all laws all the time. Greene's case is not only "against" obligation. It is also "for" an approach he calls "permeable sovereignty": all of our norms are on equal footing with the state's laws. Accordingly, the state should accommodate religious, philosophical, family, or tribal norms whenever possible.Greene shows that questions of interpretive obligation share many qualities with those of political obligation. In rejecting the view that constitutional interpreters must follow either prior or higher sources of constitutional meaning, Greene confronts and turns aside arguments similar to those offered for a moral duty of citizens to obey the law.
606   $aConstitutional law$zUnited States
606   $aEffectiveness and validity of law
606   $aLaw$xMoral and ethical aspects
606   $aObedience (Law)
608   $aElectronic books.
615  0$aConstitutional law
615  0$aEffectiveness and validity of law.
615  0$aLaw$xMoral and ethical aspects.
615  0$aObedience (Law)
676   $a340/.112
700   $aGreene$b Abner$f1960-$01033012
801  0$bMiAaPQ
801  1$bMiAaPQ
801  2$bMiAaPQ
906   $aBOOK
912   $a9910465734603321
996   $aAgainst obligation$92451229
997   $aUNINA