Clashes of Taste in Constitutional Interpretation

Much of the contemporary debate about constitutional interpretation is carried on in the language of accountability. Constitutional interpretation is, after all, an “accounting” for a particular result that one views as required by the Constitution. And the overarching debate among constitutional interpreters concerns the existence of what might be termed “generally accepted principles of constitutional accounting” that will allow us to distinguish between proper decisions and distorted renderings of the Constitution. The opposite pole of such principles, of course, is suggested by the common expression, “There’s no accounting for tastes.” Are one’s preferences in constitutional interpretat...