: The essay traces the evolution of constitutional jurisprudence about consistent interpretation of
Constitution up to its most recent arrivals, which are still insecure today and burdened with not removed
theoretical-reconstructive aporias. An attempt is made to explain the perspective change on the basis that the
consistent interpretation of the origins was aimed at innervating the new Constitution in the legal system and at
entrenching the constitutional culture in the courts. Subsequently, theoretical, political and factual justifications,
combined with both judicial substitution and crisis of politics, have made the judiciary emerge as a “third giant”
alongside the legislative and executive and broaden the scope of application of the technique of consistent
interpretation. The push for a re-centralization of constitutional justice, of which the restriction of the use of
consistent interpretation embodies a manifestation, represents in turn a reaction to these phenomena and above
all to the costs that are paid in terms of legal certainty