Abstract

Analyzing the constitutionality of a law is a process of constitutional interpretation which does not limit itself to comparing two texts in order to see whether they are concordant or not. The nature of constitutional interpretation is the subject of this article, a subject that is dealt with from the perspective of the dispute between originalism and non-originalism (interpretivism) prevalent within the contemporary philosophy of law, especially the American one. The article offers a synthetic view on some of the most controversial issues pertaining to the theory and methodology of contemporary constitutional interpretation, such as: whether the interpretation of the Constitution is guided by the founders’intentions or by the text’s own words; whether the meaning of the Constitution is determined by the intentions, aims or values of the founders’ generation or by those of the contemporary generation? What are the grounds that justify the authority of the constitutional text, in other words, does this authority derive from its constraining capacityorfromitsabilitytobestowdemocraticlegitimacy?Constitutional interpretation must concentrate on the text or on the interpreter? Do the judges discover or build the constitutional meaning? In other words, is it the past or the present that guides the interpretation? Is the original interpretation the legitimate one or are legitimate the later interpretations of the constitutional text?