It might be objected that finding the linguistic meaning of the relevant legal texts does resolve disputes because the linguistic meaning constitutes the provision’s contribution to the law. This objection concedes that legal interpretation seeks a provision’s contribution to the law and assumes that that contribution is constituted by linguistic meaning. The objection therefore should be understood as taking the position that legal interpretation, by its nature, seeks the (provisions’ contribution to the) content of the law, and further holding, based on a controversial substantive claim about how the content of the law is determined, that the correct method of legal interpretation is to ascertain linguistic meaning. At any rate, legal interpretation’s constitutive aim should not be understood in a way whose plausibility depends on a controversial substantive claim about how the content of the law is determined.