Legal interpretation starts from certain input, such as legal texts and practices, actions and mental states of certain legal actors, and customs. (It is controversial exactly what the input should include, though certain texts are central.) And legal interpretation yields an output – “an interpretation.” The familiar debate concerns which method of getting from the input to the output is correct. But the more basic issue concerns what the output is supposed to be – what legal interpretation seeks. (For brevity, I will often write simply of what legal interpretation seeks; the qualification “by its nature” should be understood.) In the case of constitutional and statutory provisions, for example, is it the linguistic meaning of the text of the relevant provision? The provision’s contribution to the content of the law? The best resolution of disputes? Or something else?