What the legislature did not say

References

1. Allan, J
   2000 “Constitutional Interpretation v. Statutory Interpretation. Understanding the Attractions of ‘Original Intent’.” Legal Theory6: 109–126. doi: 10.1017/S1352325200061048
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325200061048 [Google Scholar]
2. Austin, J.L
   1979 Philosophical Papers. 3rd ed. Edited by J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock . Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/019283021X.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/019283021X.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
3. Barak, A
   2005 Purposive Interpretation in Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi: 10.1515/9781400841264
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400841264 [Google Scholar]
4. Bernatchez, S
   2007 “De la représentativité du pouvoir législatif à la recherche de l’intention du législateur: les fondements et les limites de la démocratie représentative.” Les cahiers de droit48: 449–476. doi: 10.7202/043937ar
   https://doi.org/10.7202/043937ar [Google Scholar]
5. Boella, G . et al.
   2010 “ Lex Minus Dixit Quam Voluit, Lex Magis Dixit Quam Voluit: A Formal Study on Legal Compliance and Interpretation.” InAI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems, ed. by P. Casanovas et al. , 162–183. Berlin: Springer.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Boudreau, C . et al.
   2007 “What Statutes Mean: Interpretive Lessons from Positive Theories of Communication and Legislation.” San Diego Law Review44: 957–992.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Brandom, R.B
   1994 Making It Explicit. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: Harvard University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Bratman, M.E
   1987 Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: Harvard University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bratman, M.E
   1999 Faces of Intention. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511625190
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625190 [Google Scholar]
10. Campbell, T
    2001 “Legislative Intent and Democratic Decision Making.” In Naffine et al. (2001), pp. Intention in Law and Philosophy,291–319.
11. Canale, D. and Tuzet
    2007 “On Legal Inferentialism. Toward a Pragmatics of Semantic Content in Legal Interpretation?” Ratio Juris20: 32–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9337.2007.00345.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2007.00345.x [Google Scholar]
12. Canale, D. and G. Tuzet
    2008 “On the Contrary: Inferential Analysis and Ontological Assumptions of the A Contrario Argument.” Informal Logic28: 31–43.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Canale, D. and G. Tuzet
    2009 “The A Simili Argument: An Inferentialist Setting.” Ratio Juris22: 499–509. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9337.2009.00437.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2009.00437.x [Google Scholar]
14. Canale, D. and G. Tuzet
    2010 “What Is the Reason for This Rule? An Inferential Account of the Ratio Legis .” Argumentation24: 197–210. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑009‑9171‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9171-x [Google Scholar]
15. Canale, D. and G. Tuzet
    2011 “Use and Abuse of Intratextual Argumentation in Law.” Cogency . Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation3: 33–52.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Ekelöf, P.O
    1958 “Teleological Construction of Statutes.” InScandinavian Studies in Law, Vol. 2, ed. by F. Schmidt , 75–117. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Ekins, R
    2012 The Nature of Legislative Intent. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646999.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646999.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
18. Feteris, E.T
    2005 “The Rational Reconstruction of Argumentation Referring to Consequences and Purposes in the Application of Legal Rules: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.” Argumentation19: 459–470. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑005‑0512‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-0512-0 [Google Scholar]
19. Feteris, E.T
    2008 “Strategic Maneuvering with the Intention of the Legislator in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.” Argumentation22: 335–353. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑008‑9100‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9100-4 [Google Scholar]
20. Fuller, L.L
    1969 The Morality of Law. Revised ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Goldsworthy, J
    1997 “Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation”. Federal Law Review25: 1–50.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Goldsworthy, J
    2005 “Legislative Intentions, Legislative Supremacy, and Legal Positivism.” San Diego Law Review42: 493–518.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Greenawalt, K
    2000 “Are Mental States Relevant for Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation?” Cornell Law Review85: 1609–1672.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Honoré, T
    1987 “How Is Law Possible?” InId., Making Law Bind. Essays Legal and Philosophical, 1–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Levi, E.H
    1948 “An Introduction to Legal Reasoning.” The University of Chicago Law Review15: 501–574. doi: 10.2307/1597535
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1597535 [Google Scholar]
26. Lewis, D.K
    1973 Counterfactuals. Reissued in 2001. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
27. MacPherson, J.A.E
    2010 “Legislative Intentionalism and Proxy Agency.” Law and Philosophy29: 1–29. doi: 10.1007/s10982‑009‑9048‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-009-9048-z [Google Scholar]
28. Marmor, A
    2001 Positive Law and Objective Values. Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268970.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268970.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
29. Marmor, A
    2005 Interpretation and Legal Theory. 2nd ed. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
30. McCormick, D.N. and R.S. Summers
    (eds) 1991 Interpreting Statutes. A Comparative Study. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Moreso, J.J
    2005 Lógica, argumentación e interpretación en el derecho. Barcelona: Editorial UOC.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Naffine, N . et al.
    (eds) 2001 Intention in Law and Philosophy. Aldershot: Ashgate-Dartmouth.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Pettit, P
    2001 Collective Intentions. In Naffine et al. (2001), pp. Intention in Law and Philosophy,241–254.
34. Pino, G
    2008 “Il linguaggio dei diritti.” Ragion pratica31: 393–409.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Quine, W.V.O
    1982 Methods of Logic. 4th ed. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Radin, M
    1930 “Statutory Interpretation.” Harvard Law Review43: 863–885. doi: 10.2307/1330769
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1330769 [Google Scholar]
37. Raz, J
    1996 “Intention in Interpretation.” InThe Autonomy of Law. Essays on Legal Positivism, ed. by R.P. George , 249–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Stalnaker, R
    2003 Ways a World May Be. Metaphysical a Anti-metaphysical Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi: 10.1093/0199251487.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/0199251487.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
39. Stoljar, N
    1998 “Counterfactuals in Interpretation: The Case Against Intentionalism.” Adelaide Law Review20: 29–59.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Stoljar, N
    2001a “Vagueness, Counterfactual Intentions, and Legal Interpretation.” Legal Theory7: 447–465. doi: 10.1017/S1352325201704089
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325201704089 [Google Scholar]
41. Stoljar, N
    2001b “Postulated Authors and Hypothetical Intentions.” In Naffine et al. (2001), pp. Intention in Law and Philosophy,271–290.
42. Summers, R.S
    2000 Essays in Legal Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9407‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9407-3 [Google Scholar]
43. Williams, J
    2001 “Constitutional Intention: The Limits of Originalism.” In Naffine , et al. (2001), pp. Intention in Law and Philosophy,321–341.