Gadamer's Big Insight.
In debates about interpretation in legal theory, the hermeneutic circle, holism (or Amar's intratextualism) is sometimes viewed as a methodology or normative view about how we should go about interpreting the constitution. Han Georg Gadamer's Truth and Method had an important insight about the hermeneutic circle. Holism is not an option; it is the way we understand. There is no such thing as "clause bound interpretivism," unless you literally deprive yourself of direct and indirect access to the whole text. This is not to say that one cannot pay more or less attention to the relationship between different parts of a text in the context of the whole, but the hermeneutic circle is inescapable.
"It takes a theory to beat a theory."--Richard Esptein [92 Yale Law Journal 1435 (1983)]
Once a commonplace at faculty workshops everywhere, the old saw that "It takes a theory to beat a theory," seems to be out of favor. Pragmatism, practical reason, and even old fashion ad hocery is all the rage. Has legal theory taken an antitheoretical turn? "Yes," is surely the tempting answer, but before we go there, it is well to remember that there is a distinction between anti-theoreticalism and anti-foundationalism. Pragmatists are anitfoundationalist, but are they really antitheoretical? Of course, there is the easy anti-theory version of the tu quoque: isn't pragmatism itself a theory? And of course it is. As legal theory goes down the antitheoretical path, it might be well to remember that we are treading old ground. Take a look at this website on Anti Theory in Ethics.
Institutionalism Makes A Prominent Appearance. Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule have posted a very interesting piece on SSRN, called Interpretation and Institutions. Their thesis is that theories of interpretation must take into account the institutional capacities of judges. Once we focus on real-world judges, they argue, we may realize that sophisticated theories of interpretation (Dworkin, Lessig, Amar) demand too much. Are they really suggesting a return to simple-minded formalism? Check it out by following the link: Interpretation and Institutions