Which Constitutional Modality is the Best?
Submission by Joshua Hinds ‘26
In order to answer the question as to which modality of constitutional interpretation is best, first the understanding of what a constitutional modality is must be made clear, then the idea of what is best would also need to be defined. During the landmark Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), the concept of judicial review was formally established as a foundational characteristic of the Supreme Court. Judiciary review allows the Supreme Court to hold the other two branches of the government, that being the executive and legislative, accountable by holding their actions to the Constitution in order to see whether or not they are constitutional. With the Supreme Court now being able to interpret the Constitution and hold others accountable, there then arose the modes in which they were to interpret the Constitution. Now in order to understand which mode, or lens in which to view the Constitution under is best, under this context, it would have to be whichever mode that gives the particular justice interpreting the Constitution the most full version of the interpretation; It would have to be one that would give most meaning and truth to what the constitution means and how it acts in order to best apply it.
Philip Bobbitt, a constitutional theorist, popularized the concept of constitutional modalities, breaking them down into eight different lenses in which the constitution can be viewed under. Those modes being: “(1) textualism; (2) original meaning; (3) judicial precedent; (4) pragmatism; (5) moral reasoning; (6) national identity (or ethos); (7) structuralism; and (8) historical practices.” In reality, it should be understood that Supreme Court justices who are interpreting the Constitution will use any number of these modalities at a given time as well as nonexclusively. Thus, all of these modalities are useful and important, but if we are looking for the modality that would provide the fullest of interpretations then it can be tailored down to three modalities. These three include textualism, original meaning, and judicial precedent. By analyzing these three modalities, it will be much easier to figure out how they rank with one another.
Textualism focuses on the words explicitly written in the Constitution, those who use this for mode interpretation use the generally agreed upon meaning of words in order to surmise what the text is saying. Textualism is unique in that it isolates itself from all forms of context or consequence of that particular passage, by prioritizing the objective meaning of the text through analyzing the words used as well as the grammatical structure of the text.. On the other hand original meaning cares as to the common understanding of any given law or provision as it was written. Thus, those using this lens of interpretation care greatly about context as they would hold that context would determine the true meaning of the passage. Lastly, judicial precedent is simply using prior case decisions in order to determine the current case decisions of similar fact. Those using precedent can be broad or narrow in how they apply past cases to current ones. These three modalities each have strengths and critiques that make each stronger or weaker than the other. For textualism, its strength lies in isolating the context of the original text and the effects of the text in order to derive the absolute meaning. Its weaknesses can also be in the fact that it ignores the historical context of the particular provision, where some people would hold that by not taking into account the context then the meaning that is attempted to be derived is incomplete. This is where original meaning comes in with its strength. Its strength lies within the fact that it looks to, as the name implies, the original meaning. Thus, those using it can clearly point to the purpose of the provision and reasonably apply it to a particular contemporary issue. Its weakness is that while looking at the original context of the text is useful, it can also be dated. The United States and its beliefs are not completely all that similar to those of today, thus their interpretations and intents may not be the same as today. That is the tricky part of having a living constitution that continues to change and adapt with the times. As for judicial precedent, its strength would come from being able to see past opinions and decisions on similar issues in order to gain an enlightened perspective. This allows legal tradition to build which can create precedent almost as powerful as written law. The weakness with judicial precedent, though, would be in that not all precedent is good, and that some precedent gets overturned. If that's the case, how can you rely on precedent by itself if it is possible that the particular precedent is not an accurate reflection of true meaning?
Each constitutional modality gives a piece of the interpretive puzzle in order to derive the most complete meaning. But it is these three that give the biggest of the puzzle pieces, providing us with the most complete idea of the picture, that being grammatical meaning, contextual meaning, and layers of legal discussion and reasoning. If it is required to state explicitly which of the three would be considered the single biggest piece of the interpretative puzzle then it would have to be textualism. Harkoning back to the beginning in which the role of the judiciary is discussed as being the interpreter of laws, it is thus clear that the judiciary is to remain tied to the meaning of the laws and text of the Constitution in how they act. A problem that can be faced when Justices stray from absolute meaning and interpret the Constitution through a subjective lens is that they are participating in the concept of judicial activism. Judicial activism and interpreting the Constitution through a political policy lens is contrasted with judicial restraint which is wary about reinterpreting the laws; it places more emphasis on constraint while interpreting the law. Thus, if Justices are to refrain from partaking in judicial activism while interpreting the law, then the best way to do that would be to use the textual modality—by isolating all interpretation of the law from any outside belief, whether past belief of the meaning (historicism) or current and future effects of the law (prudentialism). By objectively analyzing the passage for its grammatical structure and the words’ meaning, it is easier to stay consistent and objective. This is not to say that neither originialism or judicial precedent are unable to maintain objectivity, it is just that those are more prone to the effects of subjective interpretation which is exemplified through overturning precedent for example.
Joshua Hinds is a senior majoring in philosophy and political science.
Sources
Calabresi, S. G. (n.d.). On Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation | Constitution Center. The National Constitution Center. Retrieved February 14, 2026, from https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/white-papers/on-originalism-in-constitutional-interpretation
Constitution Annotated. (n.d.). Interpreting the Constitution Generally | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress. Constitution Annotated. Retrieved February 14, 2026, from https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.8-1/ALDE_00001302/
Constitution Annotated. (n.d.). Judicial Precedent and Constitutional Interpretation. Constitution Annotated. Retrieved February 14, 2026, from https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro-8-4/ALDE_00001305/%5B'the',%20'fourth',%20'amendment'%5D
Constitution Annotated. (n.d.). Textualism and Constitutional Interpretation | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress. Constitution Annotated. Retrieved February 14, 2026, from https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.8-2/ALDE_00001303/
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). judicial activism | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. Law.Cornell.Edu. Retrieved February 14, 2026, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/judicial_activism
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). judicial review | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. Law.Cornell.Edu. Retrieved February 14, 2026, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/judicial_review
Marshall, J. (n.d.). Marbury v. Madison. Oyez. Retrieved February 14, 2026, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137
National Constitution Center. (n.d.). Constitution 101 Resources - 1.5 Seven Methods of Constitutional Interpretation. The National Constitution Center. Retrieved February 14, 2026, from https://constitutioncenter.org/education/classroom-resource-library/classroom/1.5-info-brief-methods-of-constitutional-interpretation
Submission by Morgan Ratcliff ‘27
Introduction
In the 1803 Supreme Court Case, Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall stated, “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” With these words, it was established that the Supreme Court of the United States possessed the power of judicial review. This meant that the court had the “power to review the constitutionality of federal government action.” Judicial review remains a key function of the Supreme Court today.
The action of judicial review requires that the Courts work closely with the Constitution to interpret and apply it to today’s legal issues. This requirement makes it important to recognize the different kinds of constitutional interpretation of which there are seven: Textualism, original meaning, judicial precedent, pragmatism, moral reasoning, national identity, and structuralism. To decide which form of constitutional interpretation is best, we must first briefly explore how each is defined and applied.
Forms of Constitutional Interpretation
We will begin with textualism. The Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School defines textualism by its assertion “that a statute should be interpreted according to its plain meaning.” Textualists do not consider the intentions of those who drafted the Constitution, rather, they consider the exact meaning of the words as they stand. This is important to understand as it is what differentiates textualism from original meaning. Original meaning asserts that the Constitution should be interpreted according to how it was written and understood at the time of its creation. This form of interpretation involves understanding and applying the intentions of the Constitution’s authors to what they wrote. Judicial leaders are responsible for constructing the Constitution’s original meaning and applying it to cases today.
Another form of constitutional interpretation is called judicial precedent. The Library of Congress states that this form of interpretation is known as “The most commonly cited source of constitutional meaning…” The Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School states that judicial precedent involves using past court decisions as “an authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues. In other words, judicial leaders look at past decisions to determine how to rule on similar cases as they occur today.
Pragmatism is a form of constitutional interpretation which considers all of the forms of interpretation and their potential outcomes. A pragmatist assesses the perceived consequences of interpreting the Constitution in different ways and chooses to use the form which would likely result in the best outcome. Pragmatists consider things such as future costs and benefits and the perceived impact on society or government.
Moral reasoning is another form of constitutional interpretation which is often called the “ethos of the law.” Moral reasoning assigns moral notions to certain Constitutional texts. Proponents of moral reasoning believe that certain texts in the Constitution “are infused with (and informed by) certain moral concepts or ideals.” These moral concepts include, but are not limited, to equal protection and due process.
One of the final forms of constitutional interpretation is called national identity. This form looks to the morality and feelings of the nation to “elaborate on the Constitution’s meaning.” The final form is structuralism. Structuralism uses the design of the Constitution to draw inferences about its overall meaning. This form of interpretation helps to establish key relationships supported by the Constitution. Those relationships include those between the state and federal government as well as the relationship between the different branches of government.
The Case for Pragmatism
The role of constitutional interpretation is one of great importance. Ultimately, Justices and their use of the different forms of constitutional interpretation shape the United States judicial system. The form of interpretation used impacts the outcome of a case and could be the difference between a guilty or not-guilty verdict. Which form is best has been, and continues to be, up for debate amongst legal scholars.
After reviewing the different forms of constitutional interpretation, I believe that pragmatism is the best. It is important to note that the beauty of the American judicial system is that individuals can decide for themselves which form to use. However, for the sake of argument, pragmatism happens to be the most supporting, accommodating, and adaptive form of interpretation. For these reasons, it is the best.
While some forms of interpretation support people such as by uplifting the ideas of the nation through national identity or by highlighting and upholding moral ideals, pragmatism seeks to support people in a more straightforward way. The entire purpose of pragmatism is to consider the consequences of each form of interpretation to use the one which leaves those involved better than they were.
Pragmatism is both accommodating and adaptive. A pragmatist must make many considerations. Those considerations include the facts of the case, the different forms of interpretation and how they apply to the facts. The pragmatist must then consider the pros and cons of each interpretation method as it could be applied to the facts. These considerations make for well-rounded decision-making.
Other forms of interpretation such as textualism and original meaning, are strictly defined by factors such as the plain meaning of the text or the perceived meaning of the constitution by those it governed at the time of its creation. Pragmatism allows the law to adapt to the changing times and differing circumstances on a case-by-case basis. This form of interpretation makes it so that all forms of interpretation must be considered. When the consequences of different forms of interpretation are considered in relation to the facts of a case, justice prevails. Though the law is often black and white, pragmatism allows the law to adapt and reveal case-specific solutions that prioritize success and support for citizens, businesses, and governing bodies of the United States.
Morgan Ratcliff is a junior majoring in political science.
Sources
Marbury V. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
Murrill, Brandon J. U.S. Congress. Report R45129. Modes of Constitutional Interpretation. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45129
Song, Doori. “Judicial Pragmatism: Strengths and Weaknesses in Common Law Adjudication, Legislative Interpretation, and Constitutional Interpretation, 52 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev 369 (2019).” UIC Law Review 52, no. 2 (2019). Accessed February 28, 2026. https://repository.law.uic.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2785&context=lawreview
U.S. Congress. Constitution Annotated. Intro 8.5 Pragmatism and Constitutional Interpretation. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.8-5/ALDE_00001306/
U.S. Congress. Constitution Annotated. Intro 8.6. Moral Reasoning and Constitutional Interpretation. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.8-6/ALDE_00001307/
Submission by Rund Faraj ‘28
The United States Constitution is recognized as the foundation and authority that established America's governing system. It was written in 1787 and ratified in 1788, then put into effect by 1789. According to the United States Senate, the Constitution reinforces the purpose of the government in its famous opening words, “We the People,” demonstrating that serving the citizens should be its top priority. Although the Constitution established a structure and is used in multiple ways, it does not have an answer to every question. In fact, it has been written broadly intentionally so it can adapt to change, according to the American Constitution Society. Because of this, the courts' interpretation is necessary to resolve important matters that the Constitution does not explicitly resolve. According to the National Constitution Center, there are seven widely accepted methods of interpretation regarding the Constitution. These are: textualism, history, tradition, precedent, structure, prudence, and natural law, which all serve a distinct purpose to the judges who apply them. From these approaches, the most efficient is the prudential method because it is able to examine the impact of a decision by considering the consequences, offering a method that is faithful to the Constitution and stable.
The prudential approach focuses on logic and practicality, and according to the National Constitution Center, the prudential approach is when a judge considers the effects of their ruling, their limitations, and the costs and benefits of each factor. Other methods, like textualism or history, can have trouble adapting when circumstances differ from the time the Constitution was written, while prudence allows judges to be adaptable to every case by using their discretion. According to the Legal Information Institute, prudence is defined as careful judgment in decision-making. This shows that prudence is reasonably applied and structured with the betterment of the people in mind and is not something that disregards the Constitution entirely. In fact, prudential reasoning is within the constitutional structure in Article III, Section 2, according to the Congressional Research Service. This is where prudential standing doctrines are implemented in the federal courts. The federal courts can decline to hear a case based on prudential considerations, even if a party satisfies the minimum constitutional requirements. The refusal to hear a case can occur in three different scenarios: if a party is attempting to make arguments on behalf of another person, if a party is presenting a general grievance shared by the public, or if the party' s expressed interest does not fall within the interest of the law. This shows that prudence is being used by the courts as a way to protect constitutional principles such as the separation of powers and limitation of power.
Judicial rulings can influence public policy, government authority, and individual rights, which is why it is essential to take into consideration all the factors and use the prudential method since it looks at the impact decisions have on the real world. By relying on other methods, judges are not considering consequences, and their decisions could ultimately result in instability or unintentionally hurting people. When using the prudential approach, this would not be the case, as it requires judges to exercise important discretion when it comes to rulings, as explained by the National Constitution Center. Courts are not legislatures; they are not required to take on the responsibility of accountability, but their power is just as important. This is exactly why the prudent method is necessary to allow for awareness in the courts of any limitations and impacts they may have.
Since the Constitution is known to reflect conflicting ideas, as shown in Nicholas Buccola’s “In Defense of Judicial Prudence”, the implementation of prudence as a premier virtue is important, as argued throughout his article. He shows that no method is able to protect all the different values the Constitution elicits, such as democracy, the rule of law, and justice. For example, originalism will struggle to apply the Constitution when the current situation differs greatly from when it was written decades ago. There are many instances of this, which is why Buccola emphasizes the prudential approach as the best one since it looks at the situation at hand and decides what implications it needs. This shows how prudence does not replace any important modalities but is a foundation for how they should be used.
James Madison and his way of thinking show how important the prudential method is. This is highlighted in Jonathan Ashbach’s “Against Every General Principle”, which shows how Madison thought of political governance and understood that it required compromise and judgment. For example, he would support legislation even if it conflicted with his own principles, if he thought that the opposite would cause harm. He once voted for a bill regarding a church incorporation even though he was opposed to religious tax, because he was not thinking about his self-interests, but rather he was thinking about what effect his decision would have. Although he believed that principles were important, he weighed them against the consequences that could occur, and made his decision based on that. This type of thinking represents what the prudential model is. Madison did not abandon constitutional principles; he weighed his options and selected the least harmful one. This is exactly what every judge in a court of law should do when deciding a case.
Despite all of this, critics will argue that the prudential approach allows judges to be able to use their discretion freely, throwing out the Constitution entirely, weakening the Constitution's stability and its purpose. Buccola acknowledges that judges will have to prioritize some constitutional values, which would raise these arguments and expand them if not addressed. Ashbach also shows that critics tend to think that this approach will lead to constitutional limits being seen as flexible if judges can change their minds easily based on necessity. They are mostly worried about blurred lines between the courts interpreting and making policies. In reality, prudence does not completely disregard constitutional principles but works within them.
In conclusion, the prudential approach is the best method compared with the other recognized modalities. Since the Constitution was written broadly, interpretation is unavoidable, and the implementation of prudence is necessary. Judicial decisions continue to shape society and impact it in lasting ways, consequently affecting it in ways that are unforeseen and unpredictable. Prudence helps avoid dire consequences by allowing judges to use their discretion. When situations arise, prudence preserves legal power and real-world stability.
Rund Faraj is a sophomore majoring in business administration.
Sources
Ashbach, Jonathan. "Against Every General Principle: Prudence in the Constitutional Statesmanship of James Madison." American Political Thought, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1086/715005.
Buccola, Nicholas. “In Defense of Judicial Prudence: American Constitutional Theory, Virtue, and Judicial Review in Hard Cases.” The Journal Jurisprudence, December 4, 2011. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228159373_In_Defense_of_Judicial_Prudence
Miller, Eugene. "Prudence and the Rule of Law." American Journal of Jurisprudence. 1979, https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ajj24&id=187&men_tab=srchresults
Kronman, Anthony. “Alexander Bickel's Philosophy of Prudence.” The Yale Journal Law, June, 1985. https://www.jstor.org/stable/796212
U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2, cl. 1
Submission by Juan Elizondo-Alvarez ‘28
The Constitution is, for good reason, regarded as the supreme law of the land. Groundbreaking in terms of substance, revolutionary in precedent moving forward. So why do we have to be careful when reading the Constitution? The reason is up to interpretation. Literally.
There are seven common forms of constitutional interpretation: textualism, original meaning, judicial precedent, prudence, moral reasoning, national identity, structuralism, and historical practice. These interpretations have come to be the status quo through hundreds of years of constitutional spats and disputes. Naturally, the question as to which is the most effective has been discussed for an equally long amount of time. Looking through the lens of the Second Amendment and its history in the Supreme Court, we can find that a certain interpretation will appear magnified compared to its peers.
The Second Amendment’s exact text states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. While a short and succinct statement, this arguably vague language would be a topic of legal interest for years to come.
The Second Amendment was largely quiet in the first years of its birth, with a few small cases being resolved over the years. Despite the slow start, the floodgates would burst open following the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller. The case involves an individual whose one-year license for a handgun application was denied (a measure created by the District of Columbia) and his argument that this constituted a violation of his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court majority opinion stated, deferring to original meaning, that the words "Militia" does not apply strictly to military personnel as, at the time the term was written, it referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. Despite using original meaning in drafting the opinion, the Court either overlooked, or deftly ignored that, using its own original meaning, the typical “arms” at the time were flintlock muskets and rifles with bayonets, certainly not the handguns that are being disputed in this case. While useful, original meaning struggles in its need to be inclusive while, not just picking and choosing the attributes of the time period that stick in a particular decision.
Through a case following Heller, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, we can see how a certain interpretation rises above the rest. In Bruen, the State of New York requires a person to provide a “special need” for self-protection in order to receive an unrestricted license for a concealed firearm outside of a home. This law was challenged on the ground of violating the Second Amendment. In a 6-3 decision the Court held that the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense is deeply rooted in history, and there was no constitutional evidence advocating a “special need” was needed in order to exercise this right. They later go even further and state that gun regulations would only be valid if there were a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history.
We can notice historical practices, textualism, and national identity all blending together in the Court’s opinion. This said, the decision was not as open and shut as it first would appear. In this very same decision, the Court upheld regulations that ban firearms in “sensitive places”, violating the very same textualism that allowed for concepts not present in the Constitution to be struck down. The ability showcased here, to weigh certain interpretations and the consequences of them, comes with prudence. While the other interpretations tend to struggle with the implications of standing on its own in decisions, prudence has no such difficulties. In this particular case, although there is never a written statement that regulations on firearms are constitutional, the Court is able to use prudence to consider the welfare of society and draft an opinion benefiting the majority of the population.
Looking even further beyond, we can see a clear conflict of juggling interpretations in the fairly recent case of United States v. Rahimi. Rahimi was a convicted felon with a special order preventing him from possessing firearms due to his previous acts of violence with firearms. After being charged with possession of firearms, he argued his Second Amendment rights. Often in cases of heightened complexity, interpretations can blend and fight amongst one another. In this particular case we can see almost all of them taking sides against each other.
Textualism, original meaning, historical practices and structuralism all point towards acquiring Rahimi, with there being no explicit verbiage visible in the amendment, nor in history and between the branches, stating his right to possess a firearm could be revoked. Judicial precedent could also fall this way, with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen being mentioned as a possible defense. Moral reasoning and national identity both sit on the fence in this case, with possible argumentation coming from both sides. Questions arise from both of them, such as the moral implications of a felon convicted of assault being able to possess firearms. This is countered by the argument that the U.S. is the land of the free, whether every individual should be given the right to defend themselves. Putting aside the subjective philosophy that often comes with moral reasoning, national identity can also be used from either stance, with the United States history of firearm rights contrasting the notion of a safe and secure nation. In a situation like this the solution we have to against rely on Prudence.
In situations such as these, prudence gets a chance to shine. For the plain text of the Constitution would be stifling and overbearing, with no exceptions for the most bare necessities without it. Being able to leverage all of the different, often opposing, interpretations against each other and triangulate the best option for society can shift seemingly impossible cases such as these and end them in overwhelming 8-1 decisions.
Renowned Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo once wrote, "The final cause of law is the welfare of society", this is the principle of Prudence, what is best for all.
Juan Elizondo-Alvarez is a sophomore majoring in finance and accounting.
Sources
Claxton, Joseph E. "Cardozo: A Study in Reputation. By Richard A. Posner," Mercer Law Review Vol. 42, no. 4(1991).
"District of Columbia v. Heller." Oyez. Accessed February 28, 2026. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
"New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen." Oyez. Accessed February 28, 2026. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-843
U.S. Const. amend. II.
"United States v. Rahimi." Oyez. Accessed February 28, 2026. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-915
Submission by Emma Savage ‘27
Introduction
There are seven key methods judges employ when interpreting the Constitution: textualism, historical meaning, national identity, pragmatism, judicial precedent, structuralism, and morality. The method a judge selects for deciding a case is crucial because many cases in federal courts today revolve around statutory interpretation. The interpretation methods can greatly influence a case's outcome, highlighting the importance of the chosen approach. Recognizing the different approaches to constitutional interpretation sheds light on judicial reasoning and offers distinct perspectives on understanding the Constitution. Among the seven key methods of interpretation, textualism stands out as the most robust foundation for analysis.
Forms of Constitutional Interpretation
Each of the seven methods of constitutional interpretation offers a unique lens for analyzing and applying the Constitution, deepening our understanding of this foundational document.
Beginning with textualism, this approach emphasizes the literal words of the Constitution, focusing on their ordinary and original meanings as understood at the time of ratification. Textualism is highly regarded for its ability to minimize subjective influences in the courtroom, helping to ensure that judicial decisions are rooted in a clear, stable, framework rather than the personal preferences of judges. This method provides clarity and fairness, enabling a consistent application of the law.
Next, the historical meaning approach delves into the intent and context in which the Constitution's provisions were drafted and ratified. Originalists argue that the Constitution's text carried an “objectively identifiable” public meaning at the time of the Founding, which has remained constant. According to this perspective, the roles of judges and justices are to uncover and adhere to this original meaning, maintaining fidelity to the framers' intentions.
National identity, often referred to as “national ethos,” highlights the Constitution’s integral role in shaping American society. This approach considers the values, traditions, and historical experiences that have influenced the nation, recognizing that interpretations of the Constitution are indeed shaped by our collective identity and social context.
Pragmatism takes a forward-looking view, focusing on the potential societal and situational outcomes of various interpretations. This method evaluates the future costs and benefits associated with an interpretation, opting for the one that promises the most favorable outcomes for society and effective governance. By prioritizing practical implications, pragmatism seeks to advance justice and public welfare in a dynamic society.
Judicial precedent, one of the most commonly employed interpretative methods, draws heavily from prior court decisions. It emphasizes consistency and reliability in judicial reasoning, allowing similar cases to guide decisions based on established legal principles. This reliance on precedent fosters stability and predictability in the law, which is essential for upholding public confidence in the judiciary.
Structuralism looks beyond the text to the broader constitutional framework, such as the separation of powers and federalism. This approach emphasizes the design and relationships established by the Constitution, guiding decision-making by understanding how various governmental structures interact and function. Structuralism seeks to preserve the integrity of the constitutional system as a whole.
Lastly, moral reasoning emphasizes the ethical principles and moral ideals that should inform interpretations of constitutional provisions. This method seeks to align legal interpretations with fundamental notions of justice, fairness, and human rights, arguing that the law should reflect our highest ethical standards.
By employing these diverse methods of interpretation, we can engage with the Constitution more comprehensively, ensuring that its application remains relevant and just in an evolving society. Each perspective contributes to an enhanced dialogue about the Constitution's meaning and its role in guiding our American democracy.
Why is Textualism the Best Interpretation?
Among the various methods of constitutional interpretation, textualism stands out as the most consistent and principled approach. Textualists assert that the words used in a statute should be understood according to how a reasonable person would have interpreted them at the time of its enactment. This method ensures that legal decisions are grounded in the document's content rather than influenced by judges' subjective intentions or moral beliefs. Textualism relies on concrete evidence from the text itself, in contrast to historical meaning, which seeks to infer what the framers believed at the time.
Additionally, unlike approaches rooted in pragmatism or morality, textualism avoids biases or policy preferences that might affect legal outcomes. Textualists typically maintain that there exists an objective meaning within the text and refrain from delving into the intent of the drafters, adopters, or ratifiers of the Constitution and its amendments when interpreting its meaning. While national identity and structuralism can provide valuable context for analyzing the Constitution, these perspectives can also shape an individual's interpretation of American society and its foundational document. Textualism mitigates this possibility by strictly focusing on the Constitution's language.
Judicial precedent is also a crucial interpretive tool for upholding consistency; however, it does not directly engage with the Constitution's original language. Textualism restricts judicial discretion while still allowing for some interpretation within constitutional provisions. Overall, textualism strikes a balance between legal stability, historical understanding, and practicality, positioning it as the best and most reliable method for interpreting the Constitution.
Emma Savage is a junior majoring in political science.
Sources
Aftergood, Steven. “Modes of Constitutional Interpretation.” Federation of American Scientists, March 21, 2018. https://fas.org/publication/constitutional-interpretation
Bobbitt, Philip C. “Methods of Constitutional Argument.” Columbia Law School Faculty Scholarship, 1989. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5492&context=faculty_scholarship
Murrill, Brandon J. “Modes of Constitutional Interpretation.” Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, March 15, 2018. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R45129/R45129.3.pdf
Murrill, Brandon J. “The Modes of Constitutional Analysis: Original Meaning (Part 3).” Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, December 29, 2021. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10677
Newcombe, Caroline Bermeo. “Textualism: Definition, and 20 Reasons Why Textualism Is Preferable to Other Methods of Statutory Interpretation.” Missouri Law Review 87, 2022. https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol87/iss1/7
