Which Constitutional Modality is the Best?

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/