Abstract

The application of legal hermeneutics could be a constructive tool for interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Yet hermeneutics is virtually never used or mentioned by Supreme Court Justices. The two worlds, hermeneutics and constitutional law, seem to inhabit different silos. Still, the Justices and other judges could profit from the application of the discipline. This article examines the views of two leading theoreticians of hermeneutics, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur, which undermine the textualist and originalist approach to the Constitution, and highlights hermeneutic tools for constitutional interpreters.