This chapter undertakes a detailed comparison between traditionalism and other theories of constitutional law. It first distinguishes the activity of constitutional interpretation from that of determining what the law of the Constitution is. Next, it compares originalism and traditionalism, and after that nonoriginalism and traditionalism. The upshot is that traditionalism can certainly be consistent with at least some varieties of originalism, but the ends of the theories are different. The same is true of most nonoriginalist theories, which are largely theories of interpretation. The chapter concludes by considering various cases of possible conflict between text and tradition to see which has, historically, tended to trump the other. The historical examples suggest that tradition holds its own in such cases. But the conflict is unlikely to come up very often, for reasons the chapter describes.