Eleanor Finch
Strict interpretation of the constitution, also known as strict constructionism, is a legal philosophy that promotes a literal interpretation of the constitution. This means that justices interpret the constitution based on its precise wording, without considering other sources or inferring details that are not explicitly stated. This approach is often contrasted with loose constructionism, which argues that the constitution should be interpreted according to modern standards and not limited to the text of the constitution alone. Strict constructionism is associated with conservative legal philosophies and has been used to strike down federal laws and regulations that are deemed to exceed the authorities granted to them by the constitution.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Strict interpretation of the constitution | Strict construction |
| Originalism | |
| Textualism | |
| Pure textualism | |
| Literalism | |
| Narrow construction | |
| Original intent | |
| Scrivener's error exception | |
| Conservative legal philosophies |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Originalism
The term originalism was coined by Paul Brest in a 1980 article in the Boston University Law Review, although the concept has a longer history. It has been associated with conservative politicians such as Richard Nixon, who pledged to appoint justices that would interpret the law according to its original meaning and reinstate "law and order" to the judiciary. Originalism is often contrasted with the concept of a "living Constitution", which is believed to evolve and change over time.
Textualism, on the other hand, is a theory of interpretation that focuses on the objective meaning of the text of the Constitution, independent of the intentions of its adopters. Textualists believe that the role of judges is to enforce the Constitution and laws that conform to it, giving supreme deference to the enacted text. Textualism is often associated with originalism, as both theories emphasize the importance of the Constitution's text. However, textualism does not necessarily involve an examination of historical context or legislative history, which may be considered by originalists.
Strict constructionism is a related concept that involves interpreting the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language, without considering changes in societal conditions or context since the time of its writing. This approach has been criticized for potentially leading to absurd legal conclusions and for not taking into account the "intent of the makers" of the Constitution. While some associate strict constructionism with originalism, others argue that it is a separate theory.
Founding Fathers' Quotes on Guarding Against Tyranny
You may want to see also
Textualism
Proponents of textualism argue that it promotes democratic values because it adheres to the words of the Constitution as adopted by the people, rather than allowing individual justices to interpret it according to their own beliefs. They also argue that textualism leads to more predictable judgments because it prevents judges from deciding cases based on their personal policy views.
Critics of textualism argue that it can lead to absurd legal conclusions, as the most literal interpretation of a text may conflict with its commonly understood or original meaning. They also argue that judges may ascribe different meanings to the text depending on their background, particularly when the text is broadly worded or fails to address fundamental constitutional questions. In addition, critics argue that judges should consider values not specifically set forth in the text, such as moral reasoning and historical practices.
Interpreting the Constitution: Courts' Differing Views
You may want to see also
Strict constructionism
However, critics of strict constructionism argue that it can lead to absurd legal conclusions as it does not account for changes in society and modern conditions. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a proponent of textualism, stated that no one should be a strict constructionist as the literal interpretation of a text can conflict with its commonly understood or original meaning. Scalia argued for a reasonable interpretation that considers the full context and fair meaning of the text.
In addition, opponents of strict constructionism suggest that judges may ascribe different meanings to the Constitution's text depending on their background and interpretation of broadly worded provisions. They argue that judges should also consider values not explicitly stated in the text and that overreliance on precedent can be problematic if the precedent was originally decided incorrectly.
Understanding Illegal Car Repossession: Your Rights and Protections
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Judicial overreliance on precedent
Strict constructionism is another name for the strict interpretation of the constitution. It is a conservative legal philosophy that tends to be more willing to strike down federal laws and regulations that exceed the authorities given to them by the constitution.
Strict constructionism is an approach to constitutional interpretation that focuses on the literal and narrow definition of the language, without considering the differences in conditions between the time the Constitution was written and modern times. It is a rigid interpretational technique that does not account for societal changes and developments. This approach can be contrasted with loose construction, which is a loose interpretation of the Constitution.
Textualism, originalism, and strict constructionism are often used interchangeably, but they are distinct concepts. Textualism is the belief that the role of judges is to enforce the Constitution and laws that conform to it, giving effect to the words of the Constitution and statutes. If the meaning of the words is clear, the judge does not need to go any further. Originalism, on the other hand, is the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was originally understood by those who ratified it. This involves examining the document's text, previous history, and contemporaneous law and commentary.
For example, in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court's decision to uphold the "separate but equal" doctrine was based on a strict adherence to precedent, even though it offended basic moral principles and was later overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. This illustrates how judicial overreliance on precedent can lead to unjust and outdated decisions that are difficult to change without amending the Constitution.
Insurrection Clause: Fact or Fiction?
You may want to see also
Conservative legal philosophies
In American political discourse, strict constructionism is used as an umbrella term for conservative legal philosophies. This approach to constitutional interpretation involves reading the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language. It does not consider the differences in conditions between the time the Constitution was written and the present day.
Proponents of strict constructionism argue that this approach promotes democratic values by adhering to the words of the Constitution as adopted by the people, rather than allowing individual justices to interpret it based on their personal beliefs. They believe that this prevents judges from deciding cases based on their personal policy views, leading to more predictable judgments.
However, critics argue that strict constructionism can lead to absurd legal conclusions, as the most literal interpretation of a text may conflict with its commonly understood or original meaning. They also argue that judges should consider values not explicitly mentioned in the text and that strict constructionism can lead to an inflexible interpretation of the law, making it difficult to adapt to changing societal needs.
Another related concept is "originalism," which involves interpreting the Constitution as it was understood by its ratifiers or, if that understanding cannot be determined, how an objective, informed person would have interpreted it at the time. Originalism considers the historical context and contemporaneous law and commentary, in addition to the text of the Constitution.
In contrast to strict constructionism and originalism, "textualism" is a legal theory that focuses solely on the objectively understood meaning of the text, independent of ideology and politics. Textualists believe that the role of judges is to enforce the Constitution and laws that conform to it, giving effect to the words of the Constitution and statutes. If the meaning of the words is clear, there is no need to go beyond the text. However, if the text is ambiguous, textualists use well-developed rules of construction to discern its meaning.
Hamilton's Constitution Vision: Federalist or Foe?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Strict construction, or strict constructionism.
Strict constructionism is a conservative legal philosophy that interprets the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language without reference to the differences in conditions when the Constitution was written and modern conditions, inventions and societal changes.
Perhaps the best-known example of this approach is Thomas Jefferson's opinion arguing against the constitutionality of a national bank.
Critics argue that strict constructionism can lead to absurd legal conclusions. For example, a Bolognian law that banned drawing blood in public would not extend to a surgeon who opened a vein to help someone who fell down in the street.
