This work is intended to analyze a few aspects concerning the interpretation of the Constitution. The task of unfolding the meaning of the norms is conditioned by the semantic inconstancy of the items that exteriorize its content and by the comprehension inherent to every interpreter. This two data, allied to the classic methods of legal interpretation, make the search for the tenor of the norm an act of voluntarism. As a manner to mitigate the individual choices of the interpreter and, therefore, make the Constitution an important element of social integration, we shall investigate a manner that guarantees the rationalization of the interpretation process without losing the pluralism characteristic of the current societies. We believe that upon the expansion of the list of agents qualified to prepare the debate that antecedes the determination of the substance of the constitutional norm, i.e., allowing the deliberative integration of a larger number of sectors of society, therefore moving in a great deal in order to reach the most pertinent interpretation of the Constitution. We believe that this discursive perspective allows the introduction of a factor that restricts and mitigates the individual will of the interpreter, further legitimating the imposition of the Constitution itself. Furthermore, but in the same direction, we verify that the modern Constitution demands the use of interpretation methods that, due to the opening of its text and the differentiation of the density of its norms and in detriment to the syllogistic application of its rules and principles from the superiority of the norm, valorize the topic orientation, approximating the decisions made by the interpreter in the correct case. In the processes of concentrated control of constitutionality in course before the Federal High Court, the figure of the amicus curiae, due to the legislation applicable to the issue, may be important instrument of defense of this democratic conception of the interpretation of the Constitution.