Francisco J. Urbina (Notre Dame Law School) has posted Choices in Interpretation on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Interpretive debates are often framed as disputes over a single issue—e.g., originalism versus living constitutionalism, textualism versus purposivism. That portrayal can obscure a key fact: every act of legal interpretation requires interpreters to make multiple choices, not one. This Article offers a systematic account of the several choices interpreters face: regarding (1) the object of interpretation (what is interpreted); (2) the relevant meaning in that object (e.g., public meaning, intended meaning); (3) the intensity of inquiry (the amount of effort invested in determining the meaning in the object); and (4) interpretive means (e.g., dictionaries or legislative history). The choices are distinct, the alternatives for each are different, and so are some of the reasons bearing on them.
This differentiated account yields several payoffs. It brings attention to the myriad choices interpreters make, knowingly or not. It helps us make these choices by clarifying the different considerations bearing on each choice and by revealing how they impact one another. And it allows us to better delineate interpretive disagreements by tracing them to specific and well-defined choices.
Highly recommended.