Legal models of Constitutional interpretation: last word and dialogue between Courts and Legislatures

The article aims at analyzing the existing systems of constitutional interpretation, classifying them into two groups: the "last word" models and the models of "institutional dialogues". Firstly, this article presents who are the interpreters of the constitution and what are the concerns and debates that mark this scenario. Next, the main models of constitutional interpretation are described, specifying the Schmittian model, the model of constitutional jurisdiction and the model of parliamentary supremacy, as well as the models of interrogative, interruptive and constructive dialogue. In the end, reflections on these models are presented, concluding that institutional dialogues models minimize both the risk of unfair legislative interference that threatens freedom and the risk of unfair judicial interference against legislation, and that such models seem to suit the desire to neutralize abuses by state actors and to achieve greater harmony between the three branches of government, leading to an interpretation of the constitution more adequate to constitutional reality and the democratic system.