Contributions by ‘Francisco J. Urbina’

Cass Sunstein’s illuminating new book, How to Interpret the Constitution?, is both an introduction to theories of constitutional interpretation in the U.S. and an argument on interpretive choice. Sunstein explains that the book has two goals: first, to provide an introduction—a “guide to the perplexed”—on debates of interpretation and to clarify the “nature of legitimate disagreement” (p. 7); and second, the book seeks “to ask and answer a single question: How should we choose a theory of constitutional interpretation?” (p. 8). For Sunstein, we are necessarily confronted with this choice: there is no single theory of interpretation that is required by the Constitution, or that derives from “some abstract idea like ‘legitimacy,’” or that is required by the very idea of “interpretation” (p. 8). This last point is of great concern to Sunstein. He is keen to establish that “there is nothing that interpretation ‘just is’” (p. 61) (the title of his seminal paper on the subject).