Valuing our Discordant Constitutional Discourse: Autonomous-Text Constitutionalism and the Jewish Legal Tradition

American constitutional discourse remains fractious, with competing interpretive theories producing sharply divergent conclusions about constitutional meaning. Pill argues that autonomous-textualism—an interpretive approach inspired by Hans-Georg Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics—offers a way to elevate discourse above partisan political debate. The theory posits that constitutional meaning emerges from an interpretive dialogue between text and reader, acknowledging textual pluralism rather than seeking single authoritative meanings. Pill draws on Jewish legal tradition, which employs interpretive pluralism across centuries to preserve continuity while adapting doctrine to contemporary circumstances. The article explains how Jewish law's Gadamerian-inspired hermeneutical model successfully navigates interpretive disagreement without collapsing into relativism. Pill argues autonomous-textualism, grounded in philosophical hermeneutics, provides a framework for American constitutionalism to embrace interpretive pluralism and move beyond debates over originalism, historicism, and pragmatism. By adopting pluralistic interpretive methods, constitutional law can address central problems driving contemporary disagreement while preserving fidelity to constitutional text.

Topics: Constitutional Law · Legal Theory

Keywords: autonomous-textualism · constitutional interpretation · hermeneutics · Jewish legal tradition · interpretive pluralism · textualism · constitutional meaning