“A long-standing dispute in constitutional theory has gone under different names at different times, but today’s terminology seems as helpful as any. Today we are likely to call the contending sides ‘interpretivism’ and ‘noninterpretivism’ — the former indicating that judges deciding constitutional issues should confine themselves to enforcing norms that are stated or clearly implicit in the written Constitution, the latter the contrary view that courts should go beyond that set of references and enforce norms that cannot be discovered within the four corners of the instrument.” John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust 1 (1980).
interpretivism
interpretivism. A doctrine of constitutional interpretation holding that judges must follow norms or values expressly stated or implied in the language of the Constitution. Cf. NONINTERPRETIVISM; ORIGINALISM.
