| dc.contributor.author | Sherry, Suzanna | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2014-05-30T13:24:25Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2014-05-30T13:24:25Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1992 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 61 U. Cin. L. Rev. 171 (1992) | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1803/6374 | |
| dc.description | article published in law review | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | Two of our most cherished constitutional myths are that we are, more or less, carrying on the constitutional traditions of the framers, and that the framers' most significant innovation was the invention of a written constitution. Neither belief is true. This article is the second in a series suggesting that our vision of the Constitution differs in a particular and important way from that of the framers: for us, it is the sole source of fundamental law, while for the framers it was only one source among many. | en_US |
| dc.format.extent | 1 PDF (53 pages) | en_US |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Cincinnati Law Review | en_US |
| dc.subject.lcsh | Constitutional history -- United States | en_US |
| dc.title | Natural Law in the States | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |
