Abstract

The conventional difference between flexible and rigid constitutions englobes the far more profound distinction between the constitutions of the liberal period and the constitutions of today. While liberal constitutions kept social conflict "away" from constitutional bodies by limiting franchise, present-day constitutions incorporate and regulate social conflict "through" constitutional bodies and laws. In this perspective a series of problematic issues related to constitutional interpretation become much clearer. Nonetheless, one has to question the function of constitutions in a world where social conflict has gone beyond that national dimension that constitutions still maintain.