Which Constitutional Modality is the Best?

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