LEADER 03579nam 2200649Ia 450 001 9910822030303321 005 20240416154247.0 010 $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 $ethe multiple sources of authority in a liberal democracy /$fAbner S. Greene 205 $a1st ed. 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 $aObedience (Law) 615 0$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-$01689960 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910822030303321 996 $aAgainst obligation$94065378 997 $aUNINA