BibTex Citation Data :
@article{MMH72813, author = {Muhammad Ilham Hermawan}, title = {GREGORY LEYH’S APPROACH TO CONSTITUTIONAL HERMENEUTICS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LEGAL HERMENEUTICS ACCORDING TO HANS-GEORG GADAMER}, journal = {Masalah-Masalah Hukum}, volume = {54}, number = {2}, year = {2025}, keywords = {Constitutional Interpretation; Originalism; Non-originalism; Hermeneutics; Legal Philosophy}, abstract = { Constitutional interpretation is a crucial and evolving field that extends beyond judges, involving legal scholars, citizens, and political theorists. It encompasses various methods such as originalism, textualism, moral reasoning, structural reasoning, and comparative constitutional law, each offering distinct approaches to understanding the Constitution. These methods are often categorized into two schools of thought: originalist and non-originalist. The debate between these two approaches has been a source of recurring controversy, with originalism advocating for adherence to the framers’ intentions and non-originalism promoting a more dynamic, “living” interpretation. Terence Ball emphasizes the significance of constitutional interpretation, dubbing it “deadly hermeneutics,” as a nation’s fate hinges on how its Constitution is understood and applied. While traditional theories focus on textual meaning or historical context, this article proposes that constitutional interpretation must also be approached ontologically—understanding the very essence of interpretation. Drawing on Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics, this study suggests that constitutional interpretation should be viewed as a dynamic process influenced by historical understanding, language, and societal context. Constitutional hermeneutics, as a theoretical framework, opposes rigid methodologies and emphasizes the role of language, historical context, and prejudices in shaping meaning. It offers a more holistic understanding, allowing for the Constitution to evolve with societal changes, ensuring its relevance in modern governance. This approach provides a more comprehensive solution to the challenges posed by the debate between originalism and non-originalism. }, issn = {2527-4716}, pages = {255--268} doi = {10.14710/mmh.54.2.2025.255-268}, url = {https://ejournal.undip.ac.id/index.php/mmh/article/view/72813} }
Refworks Citation Data :
Constitutional interpretation is a crucial and evolving field that extends beyond judges, involving legal scholars, citizens, and political theorists. It encompasses various methods such as originalism, textualism, moral reasoning, structural reasoning, and comparative constitutional law, each offering distinct approaches to understanding the Constitution. These methods are often categorized into two schools of thought: originalist and non-originalist. The debate between these two approaches has been a source of recurring controversy, with originalism advocating for adherence to the framers’ intentions and non-originalism promoting a more dynamic, “living” interpretation. Terence Ball emphasizes the significance of constitutional interpretation, dubbing it “deadly hermeneutics,” as a nation’s fate hinges on how its Constitution is understood and applied. While traditional theories focus on textual meaning or historical context, this article proposes that constitutional interpretation must also be approached ontologically—understanding the very essence of interpretation. Drawing on Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics, this study suggests that constitutional interpretation should be viewed as a dynamic process influenced by historical understanding, language, and societal context. Constitutional hermeneutics, as a theoretical framework, opposes rigid methodologies and emphasizes the role of language, historical context, and prejudices in shaping meaning. It offers a more holistic understanding, allowing for the Constitution to evolve with societal changes, ensuring its relevance in modern governance. This approach provides a more comprehensive solution to the challenges posed by the debate between originalism and non-originalism.
Article Metrics:
Last update:
Last update: 2025-10-15 08:13:58
The Authors submitting a manuscript do so on the understanding that if accepted for publication, copyright of the article shall be assigned to Masalah Masalah Hukum journal (MMH) and Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro as publisher of the journal. Copyright encompasses rights to reproduce and deliver the article in all form and media, including reprints, photographs, microfilms, and any other similar reproductions, as well as translations.
MMH journal and Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro and the Editors make every effort to ensure that no wrong or misleading data, opinions or statements be published in the journal. In any way, the contents of the articles and advertisements published in MMH journal are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and advertisers.
We strongly encourage that manuscripts be submitted to online journal system in http://ejournal.undip.ac.id/index.php/mmh/index. Authors are required to create an account and submit the manuscripts online. For submission inquiries, please follow the submission instructions in the website. If the author has any problems on the online submission, please contact Editorial Office at the following email: jurnal.mmh@undip.ac.id or jurnal.mmh@gmail.com
Contributors are responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce any materials, including photographs and illustrations, for which they do not hold the copyright and for ensuring that the appropriate acknowledgments are included in the manuscript.