ABSTRACT
The idea of “objective meaning” lies at the core of William Hubbs Rehnquist’s theory of judging, which views the act of judging as limited by the text and intention of the written law. Rehnquist approaches judicial interpretation at the level of the purpose of language. Judicial restraint and its antecedent beliefs in original intention and the “objective meaning” of legal language are matters neither of liberalism nor of conservatism: they are matters of constitutionalism. For judges to expand their role and impart new meaning to the Constitution is to deny the most basic premise of popular consent as it is expressed in a written Constitution of clear and common language. Rehnquist’s jurisprudence springs from his understanding of the history and political theory of the Constitution’s founding. The philosophic assumptions underlying Chief Justice Rehnquist’s jurisprudence merit a bit more explication.
