 (2) How much emphasis is to be placed on the conserving vs. the creative elements in interpretation? At the conserving extreme, we find accounts such as ‘originalism’ in US constitutional interpretation which claims that in interpreting a particular provision of the Constitution, judges should seek to establish the way in which the provision was originally understood by those who ratified it (see e.g. Bork 1990). As close as possible conformity with those original intentions thus furnishes us with the standard of correctness in constitutional interpretation on this approach. According to Bork 1990, adherence to originalism in US constitutional interpretation is necessary to ensure that the judiciary confines itself to its proper sphere of authority, thus preserving the separation of powers and structure of government in the form in which the founders of the US intended. Ronald Dworkin has recently addressed directly the topic of originalism in US Constitutional Interpretation and has argued that fidelity to the Constitution's text does not exhaust constitutional interpretation, and that the search for constitutional integrity (see further point 6 below, and the section on Coherence in Legal Reasoning) might require interpreters to depart from the best interpretation of the constitutional text considered apart from the history of its enforcement (Dworkin 2006, ch.5). Accounts such as that offered by Levinson (1982) are at the other end of the spectrum: they reject originalism and give far more weight to the role of innovation in legal interpretation. Indeed, Levinson contends that all US constitutional interpretation is necessarily creative, due to radical and pervasive linguistic indeterminacy in the law. If such approaches wish to claim that there are standards by which we can judge interpretations to be better or worse, correct or incorrect, then they must find such standards other than in the conserving aspect of interpretation, as the requirement that one be faithful to the meaning of an original seems to be obliterated on such views. As was noted at the end of subsection 2.2 above, some such views may wish to claim that our practice of accounting interpretations as good or bad, correct or incorrect is incoherent. One other possibility, however, is that the notion of ‘correctness’ can be salvaged by being pegged to the communal reactions of the relevant interpretive community; our interpretations are the right ones when they accord sufficiently with those of our similarly situated fellow interpreters (see e.g. Kripke 1982 and those works discussed in point (3) below).  Some commentators have poured scorn on the idea that this sort of approach could yield standards of correctness worthy of the name. See for example Baker &amp; Hacker 1984, who contend that Kripke's position amounts to the view that, ‘an unjustified stab in the dark is unobjectionable as long as it is made in good company.’ (Baker and Hacker 1982, 81–82).