{"text_format":"5","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["report2"],"props":{"last_modified_by":"sharecat"},"not_rendered":{"external_links":1,"defined_names":1},"read":"whole","date_system":"1900","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"report2","index":0,"n_rows":21,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":21,"merged":[[0,2,0,3],[0,4,0,5],[1,2,1,3],[1,4,1,5],[2,2,2,3],[2,4,2,5],[3,2,3,3],[4,2,4,3],[7,2,7,3],[8,2,8,3],[9,2,9,3],[10,2,10,3],[12,2,12,3],[14,2,14,3],[15,2,15,3],[19,2,19,3]],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
[null,"1.","Record Nr.",null,"UNINA9910809642003321"]
[null,null,"Autore",null,"Goldstein Joseph <1923-2000, >"]
[null,null,"Titolo",null,"The intelligible Constitution : the Supreme Court's obligation to maintain the Constitution as something we the people can understand / / Joseph Goldstein [[electronic resource]]"]
[null,null,"Pubbl/distr/stampa",null,"New York ; , : Oxford University Press, , 2023"]
[null,null,"ISBN",null,"0-19-771951-1"]
[{"$nulls":4},"1-280-52777-3"]
[{"$nulls":4},"0-19-802373-1"]
[null,null,"Edizione",null,"[1st ed.]"]
[null,null,"Descrizione fisica",null,"1 online resource (222 p.)"]
[null,null,"Collana",null,"Oxford scholarship online"]
[null,null,"Disciplina",null,"347.3022"]
[{"$nulls":4},"347.7326347.30735"]
[null,null,"Soggetti",null,"Constitutional law - United States"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Judicial opinions - United States"]
[null,null,"Lingua di pubblicazione",null,"Inglese"]
[null,null,"Formato",null,"Materiale a stampa"]
[{"$nulls":3},"Livello bibliografico","Monografia"]
[{"$nulls":3},"Note generali","Includes indexes."]
[{"$nulls":4},"Previously issued in print: 1992."]
[null,null,"Nota di contenuto",null,"Contents; A Foreword; Part I: WHY AN INTELLIGIBLE CONSTITUTION; Part II: OPINION STUDIES; Part III: CANONS OF COMPREHENSIBILITY; Appendix: The Constitution of the United States; Notes; Case Index; Name Index; Index"]
[{"$nulls":3},"Sommario/riassunto","This monograph argues that the central obligation of the US Supreme Court is to address itself to the American people from whom it derives its constitutional authority. The author points out that the Court repeatedly fails to make its opinions clear, even to legal practitioners."]