Hans Kelsen´s Pure Theory of Law argues that legal texts must be isolated from ideological questions in order to be interpreted in their true meanings. Accordingly, this theory considers an interpretation to be biased when it is influenced by personal interests or political questions. After all, the law should exist only as real, not as ideal or fair. That is the only way it can be considered a science. This way, the unavoidable uncertainty of laws should only be due to semantics questions related to the multiple meanings of the words, technical errors, and necessities of the juridical world. Without negating the importance of this theory, the juridical Hermeneutic today deals with concepts similar to the ones developed by sociolinguistics studies, in which the interpreter does not have a passive role in constructing meaning. Thus, this dissertation rejects some classical ideas of interpretation of law and presents new possibilities created by the sociolinguistic perspective in the interpretation of legal papers. The focus of this analysis is the uncertainty found in the laws, that gains new perspectives through the consideration of context and participants in this communication process. Some argue that a significant numbers of ambiguity and vagueness found in legal texts, often disguised by a language hard to be understood even to law professionals, in fact, is an intentional strategy to veil potential polemic meanings. The material analyzed is a sample of the Brazilian Constitution texts, including articles from the Constitution of 1988 and supplemental laws foreseen by it.