This is an ambitious work on constitutional theory. Sean Wilson presents a novel perspective that is influenced by views of Ludwig Wittgenstein, and tackles the problem of how a judge can obey a document written in ordinary, flexible language. It argues that whether something is "constitutional" is not an historical fact, but is an artisan judgment, and it offers criteria for what makes some of these judgments better than others. Offering a potent critique of originalism, Wilson reveals what this belief system actually is and why it is inherently incompatible with the American legal system. By showing when it is permissible to use history to understand the Constitution and when it is not, Wilson challenges the views of Ronald Dworkin and the scholarship of numerous law professors, and its findings challenge how professors of politics think about whether judges "follow law." Along with proposing new models of legal interpretation, the book demonstrates why originalism must ultimately be regarded as a political ideology.