Interpreters of the Constitution: The Problem of Typology

1. Alexy, Robert. A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of RationalDiscourse as Theory of Legal Justification. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.Search in Google Scholar

2. Bergel, Jean Louis. Théorie générale du droit. Paris: Jurisprudence Générale Dalloz, 1999.Search in Google Scholar

3. Diritto costituzionale. XVIII Edizione. Napoli: Gruppo Editoriale Esselibri - Simone, 2003.Search in Google Scholar

4. Durkheim, Emile. Les Règles de la méthode sociologique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2007.Search in Google Scholar

5. Dworkin, Ronald. Justice in Robes. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006.Search in Google Scholar

6. Farrar, John Hynes, and Anthony M. Dugdale. Introduction to Legal Method. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1990.Search in Google Scholar

7. Holmes, Oliver Wendell. “The Path of the Law.” Harvard Law Review (1897) // http://constitution.org/lrev/owh/path_law.htm (accessed October 17, 2012).Search in Google Scholar

8. Jarašiūnas, Egidijus. Démocratie et Liberté: Tension, Dialogue, Confrontation. Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2007.Search in Google Scholar

9. Jarašiūnas, Egidijus. “The Control of Constitutionality of Legal Acts and the establishment of the Constitutional Court in Lithuania”: 3-39. In: Constitutional Justice in Lithuania. Vilnius, 2003.Search in Google Scholar

10. Kelsen, Hans. Pure Theory of Law. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967.10.1525/9780520312296Search in Google Scholar

11. Kuhn, Thomas Samuel. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.Search in Google Scholar

12. Kūris, Egidijus. “The Constitutional Court and Interpretation of the Constitution”: 205-321. In: Constitutional Justice in Lithuania. Vilnius, 2003.Search in Google Scholar

13. Mesonis, Gediminas. Konstitucijos interpretavimo metodologiniai pagrindai. Vilnius: Registrų centras, 2010.Search in Google Scholar

14. Mesonis, Gediminas. “Tomaš Garrigue Masaryk and Mykolas Römeris: Two figures, Two Approaches to the State and the Constitution.” Acta UniversitatisCarolinae. Iuridica No. 2 (Praha, Univerzita Karlova v Praze, 2010): 37-61.Search in Google Scholar

15. Pelikan, Jaroslav. Interpreting the Bible and the Constitution. New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2004.10.12987/yale/9780300102673.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

16. Pollock, Joycelyn M. Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justine. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2007.Search in Google Scholar

17. Sajó, András. Constitutional Sentiments. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

18. Schmitt, Carl. Constitutional Theory. Durham, London: Duke University Press, 2008.Search in Google Scholar

19. Spitzer, Robert J. Saving the Constitution from Lawyers: How Legal Trainingand Law Reviews Distort Constitutional Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.10.1017/CBO9781139167512Search in Google Scholar

20. Steiner, Eva. French Legal Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.Search in Google Scholar

21. Whittington, Keith E. “How to Read the Constitution: Self-Government and the Jurisprudence of Originalism.” The Heritage Foundation 5 (2006) // http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/05/how-to-read-theconstitution-self-government-and-the-jurisprudence-of-originalism (accessed October 17, 2012).Search in Google Scholar