ABSTRACT
As important as the debate over constitutional detenninacy may be, its prominence in modern constitutional theory over the last thirty years has carried with it serious opportunity costs. Specifica1ly, the prominence of the debate over the Constitution's meaning, whether it can be said to have one, and the implications for the coherence of liberalism that these questions of interpretation seem to raise, has pushed to the background an older and possibly more important debate about the Constitution's value. By asking relentlessly whether the Constitution's meaning can be made sufficiently determinate to serve the Rule of Law-by focusing almost exc1usively on whether constitutionalism is possible within liberal theory and whether liberalism is possible, given an indeterminate Constitution-we have neglected to ask whether our Constitution is desirable. Does it further the "good life" for the individuals, communities, and subcommunities it governs?
