"In this groundbreaking book, Scalia and Garner systematically explain all the most important principles of constitutional, statutory, and contractual interpretation in an engaging and informative style - with hundreds of illustrations from actual cases. Is a burrito a sandwich? Is a corporation entitled to personal privacy? If you trade a gun for drugs, are you "using a gun" in a drug transaction? The authors grapple with these and dozens of equally curious questions while explaining the most principled, lucid, and ...
Read More
"In this groundbreaking book, Scalia and Garner systematically explain all the most important principles of constitutional, statutory, and contractual interpretation in an engaging and informative style - with hundreds of illustrations from actual cases. Is a burrito a sandwich? Is a corporation entitled to personal privacy? If you trade a gun for drugs, are you "using a gun" in a drug transaction? The authors grapple with these and dozens of equally curious questions while explaining the most principled, lucid, and reliable techniques for deriving meaning from authoritative texts. Meanwhile, the book takes up some of the most controversial issues in modern jurisprudence. The authors write with a well-argued point of view that is definitive yet nuanced, straightforward yet sophisticated"--Provided by publisher.
Read Less
Choose your shipping method in Checkout. Costs may vary based on destination.
Seller's Description:
As New in As New jacket. Signed by Author(s) Signed by the author Antonin Scalia on the half title page. Not inscribed. This book is rare in an uninscribed copy. The book and jacket are in as new condition. First Edition, First Printing.
This is an interesting book that is useful for some things and not for others. It provides a good introduction to the definitions of words and concepts that are part of legal interpretation. It is also a very good introduction to the legal practices and beliefs of very conservative judges such as Justice Scalia. However, as an introduction to the full scope of judicial (especially constitutional) practice, it is very narrow and does not provide much insight into the way in which most judges interpret and have interpreted law for the past 50 years. If there was a rating category "halfway between yes and no above, that is what I woujld select.
