{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/41700"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/41700","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Ways of reading the constitution","abstract":"This thesis explores various approaches to constitutional interpretation, paying particular attention to the literalist approach to reading the Constitution set forth by W.W. Crosskey in Politics and the Constitution. Crosskey’s approach is compared to and contrasted with John Rohr’s intentionalist approach to reading the Constitution and the approach of judicial activism. Drawing from literary theory, this thesis outlines Stanley Fish and Robert Scholes’ approaches to reading. Fish, like judicial activists, subordinates the text to the reader. Scholes, like Crosskey, argument for textual primacy. These literary critics mirror the debate in constitutional scholarship over where meaning lies: with the text or with the reader. The debate over interpreting the Constitution adds to the tradition in public administration of normatively grounding the discipline in the Constitution. If this attempt at finding a normative grounding for public administration is to be successful, it must consider issues of interpretation.","abstract_html":"This thesis explores various approaches to constitutional interpretation, paying particular attention to the literalist approach to reading the Constitution set forth by W.W. Crosskey in Politics and the Constitution. Crosskey’s approach is compared to and contrasted with John Rohr’s intentionalist approach to reading the Constitution and the approach of judicial activism. Drawing from literary theory, this thesis outlines Stanley Fish and Robert Scholes’ approaches to reading. Fish, like judicial activists, subordinates the text to the reader. Scholes, like Crosskey, argument for textual primacy. These literary critics mirror the debate in constitutional scholarship over where meaning lies: with the text or with the reader. The debate over interpreting the Constitution adds to the tradition in public administration of normatively grounding the discipline in the Constitution. If this attempt at finding a normative grounding for public administration is to be successful, it must consider issues of interpretation.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Murray, William L."],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Master of Public Administration","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Public Administration and Policy","degree_department":"Public Administration and Policy","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1991,"date_issued":"1991","date_published":"1991","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:18:49Z","subjects":[],"languages":["en"],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-03172010-020515"],"render_values":[{"text":"etd-03172010-020515","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/41700","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Public Administration and Policy"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Murray, William L."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-03-14T21:32:01Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-03-14T21:32:01Z","2010-03-17"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1991"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.dcmitype","label":"Dc Type Dcmitype","values":["Text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Public Administration and Policy"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Public Administration"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-03172010-020515"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/41700"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This thesis explores various approaches to constitutional interpretation, paying particular attention to the literalist approach to reading the Constitution set forth by W.W. Crosskey in Politics and the Constitution. Crosskey’s approach is compared to and contrasted with John Rohr’s intentionalist approach to reading the Constitution and the approach of judicial activism. Drawing from literary theory, this thesis outlines Stanley Fish and Robert Scholes’ approaches to reading. Fish, like judicial activists, subordinates the text to the reader. Scholes, like Crosskey, argument for textual primacy. These literary critics mirror the debate in constitutional scholarship over where meaning lies: with the text or with the reader. The debate over interpreting the Constitution adds to the tradition in public administration of normatively grounding the discipline in the Constitution. If this attempt at finding a normative grounding for public administration is to be successful, it must consider issues of interpretation."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Master of Public Administration"]},{"key":"dc:format.medium","label":"Dc Format Medium","values":["BTD"]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Ways of reading the constitution"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.department":["Public Administration and Policy"],"dc:creator":["Murray, William L."],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-03-14T21:32:01Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-03-14T21:32:01Z","2010-03-17"],"dc:date.issued":["1991"],"dc:description.abstract":["This thesis explores various approaches to constitutional interpretation, paying particular attention to the literalist approach to reading the Constitution set forth by W.W. Crosskey in Politics and the Constitution. Crosskey’s approach is compared to and contrasted with John Rohr’s intentionalist approach to reading the Constitution and the approach of judicial activism. Drawing from literary theory, this thesis outlines Stanley Fish and Robert Scholes’ approaches to reading. Fish, like judicial activists, subordinates the text to the reader. Scholes, like Crosskey, argument for textual primacy. These literary critics mirror the debate in constitutional scholarship over where meaning lies: with the text or with the reader. The debate over interpreting the Constitution adds to the tradition in public administration of normatively grounding the discipline in the Constitution. If this attempt at finding a normative grounding for public administration is to be successful, it must consider issues of interpretation."],"dc:description.degree":["Master of Public Administration"],"dc:format.medium":["BTD"],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.other":["etd-03172010-020515"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/41700"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:title":["Ways of reading the constitution"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.dcmitype":["Text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Public Administration and Policy"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Public Administration"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:18:49Z"}