| Abstract: | This article examines the contemporary controversy over constitutionalinterpretation and the differing understandings of constitutionalrights that underlie it. We first consider the character andbasis for interpretivism, that is, a jurisprudence that delineatesrights by reference to the intent of the founders and to theconstitutional text. Next, we review the non-interpretivistalternative, focusing on Ronald Dworkin's influential accountof constitutional rights. We conclude that despite its strengths,Dworkin's position does justice neither to the constitutionaltext nor to the connection between structure and rights in theUnited States Constitution. Finally, considering constitutionaltheory from the broader perspective of state constitutionalism,we conclude that its insights are limited to the U.S. Constitutionand offer some suggestions for a more adequate constitutionaltheory. |
