I had written out a fairly concise list of choices with definitions when I realized that the folks here are smarter than your average bear and it was unnecessary. Personally, I'm a textualist. If the legislators can't reduce to words what they mean to convey, they've written a bad law. Im perfectly willing to make several concessions about this. 1. I will admit that almost every law requires some bit of interpretation. But the words should still control. 2. I will admit that it is an unrealistic assumption that interpreters can separate themselves from the body of preexisting beliefs. But this is the role of the judiciary. 3. I will admit that words are symbols for concepts that shift in meaning over time. But the very concept of stare decisis should help us keep meanings as absolute as they can be. There's a recourse for changing what the law is because it's outdated. Not interpretation - legislation! But the whole point of writing something down is to hold people to what is written. I'd love to see more hermeneutics be brought into the legal realm, if the product is focus, not chaos. So tell me!