REVISITING CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON THE AMERICAN DEBATES

Abstract

The author argues that the familiar distinction between interpretive and non-interpretive theories of constitutional interpretation obscures another important distinction: that between hermeneutically open and hermeneutically closed theories. Closed theories seek resolution to constitutional conflict by employing methods of interpretation that are intuitively persuasive. Open theories deny that such methods are always available, and seek resolution of conflict through a combination of legal, political, and social means. The author argues that closed theories have failed to live up to their implicit promise of self-justification, and examines the practice of constitutional interpretation in Canada and Australia to support this view.

Citation

Moore, M.J. (2003), "REVISITING CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON THE AMERICAN DEBATES", Studies in Law, Politics and Society (Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, Vol. 28), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1059-4337(02)28001-1