An Overview of the Current Problems in Constitutional Interpretation

Abstract

This article explores different theories on the problem posed by what the law states and how it is interpreted. Three interpretive approaches are presented, based on the general theory of legal interpretation. They include: 1) the realists, who support a semantic designation for normative articles that actually exist; 2) the idealists, who favor a normative semantic designation for political principles that justify the practice of law; and 3) the pragmatists, who advocate a non-normative semantic relationship contingent on the will of the author of the law. As to the theory of constitutional interpretation, two models predominate: 1) the originalists, who say interpretation should be limited to identifying the meaning of the constitutional text, pursuant to the intent of the constituent or the original meaning of the words; and 2) the extrinsics, who argue the criteria for constitutional interpretation are not related to the text or the author, but to the independent principles and merits of constitutional norms.