Editing Basic norm (section)

===Neo-Kantian===

The second form of the reception of the term originated from the fairly extended attempt to read Kelsen as a [[Neo-Kantian]] following his early exchange with [[Hermann Cohen]] in 1913 concerning the publication of Kelsen's [[habilitation]] dissertation in 1911 on public law. Cohen was a leading [[Neo-Kantian]] and Kelsen was, in his own way, receptive to many of the ideas that Cohen had expressed in his published book review of Kelsen's writing. Kelsen had insisted that he had never used this material in the actual writing of his own book, though Cohen's ideas were attractive to him in their own right. This has resulted in one of the longest-running debates within the general Kelsen community as to whether Kelsen became a [[Neo-Kantian]] himself after the encounter with Cohen, or whether he managed to keep his own non-Neo-Kantian position intact, which he claimed was the prevailing circumstance when he first wrote his book in 1911.

The Neo-Kantians, when pressing the issue, would lead Kelsen into discussions concerning whether the existence of such a ''Grundnorm'' was strictly symbolic or whether it had a concrete foundation. This has led to the further division within this debate concerning the currency of the term ''Grundnorm'' as to whether it should be read, on the one hand, as part and parcel of [[Hans Vaihinger]]'s "as-if" hypothetical construction. On the other hand, to those seeking a practical reading, the ''Grundnorm'' corresponded to something directly and concretely comparable to a sovereign nation's federal constitution, under which would be organized all or its regional and local laws, and no law would be recognized as being superior to it.