Paradox of Self-Amendment by Peter Suber 12. Hart, ibid. at 314 (emphasis in original). 13. Hart, ibid. at 315. 14. Ross, op. cit. at 7.n.1, and 20. 15. Geoffrey Marshall, Constitutional Theory, Oxford University Press, 1971, pp. 46-48; Joseph Raz, "Professor A. Ross and Some Legal Puzzles," Mind, 81 (1972) 415-21; Norbert Hoerster, "On Alf Ross's Alleged Puzzle in Constitutional Law," Mind, 81 (1972) 422-26; J.M. Finnis, "Revolutions and Continuity of Law," in A.W.B. Simpson (ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, Second Series, Oxford University Press, 1973, pp. 44-76, at 52ff; J.C. Hicks, "The Liar Paradox in Legal Reasoning," Cambridge Law Journal, 29 (1971) 275-91; and William F. Harris II, The Interpretable Constitution, Chapter Four, "Revising the Constitutional Polity: The Limits on Textual Amenability," esp. pp. 238-39, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Politics, Princeton University, 1985;. I thank Professor John Vile for bringing Harris's dissertation to my attention. 16. Marshall, op. cit. at p. 48. 17. Raz, op. cit. at 420. 18. Raz, ibid. 19. How the consistency of such inferences is affected by the fact that the old AC in the first premise authorizes amendments in general, and specifically authorizes self-amendment, will be examined in Section 12.C. 20. Hoerster, op. cit. at 423. 21. Ross, op. cit. at 21: "Any attempt at solution must stand by the principle that from the validity of a norm it is impossible to derive the validity of any norm in conflict with [it]." 22. Finnis, op. cit. at 55. 23. Finnis, ibid. 24. Finnis, ibid. cites Hart, The Concept of Law, Oxford University Press, 1961, at 103-04. 25. Hart, "Self-Referring Laws," op. cit. at 314. 26. Ross, op. cit. at 21-22, 23-24. 27. Raz, op. cit., passim. 28. Marshall, op. cit. at p. 47. 29. Hoerster, op cit. at 422-23. 30. Hoerster, ibid. at 424. 31. Hoerster, ibid. at 426. 81