CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LEGISLATION AND DISAGREEMENTS

Some philosophers have traditionally held that the legitimacy of judicial review of legislation depends partially on the existence of right answers in the interpretation of constitutional rights, and that the skeptical positions on the indeterminacy of the constitution also imply several objections to the judicial review of legislation. In this paper it is explained that this thesis is wrong and that actually the semantic or metathetic theories of the meaning of constitutional clauses scarcely contribute, in contexts of reasonable disagreements, to the theories about the legitimacy of any procedure of judicial review.