ABSTRACT
Legal argumentation is a question that is often considered in various branches of law.
In American jurisprudence, however, it is of utmost importance, as American law can and must be created by judges, in accordance with the concept of legal realism.
The chapter discusses the current positions of American scientists on the role of the meaning of words within judicial argumentation. It aims to answer the question posed in the title: whether the problem of the meaning of the meaning of the words used in the Constitution is still relevant in the newest branch of American jurisprudence, judicial science.
The current theories of American law propose several leading ways to argue judicial decisions, the most popular being textualism, originalism, intentionalism and judicial activism. Their common feature is a foundation in the philosophy of language, which considers the meaning of words. Each of them perceives the role of the meaning of the words, used by the Founding Fathers in creating the Constitution, in a different way.
