Liberal Vs Strict: Interpreting The Constitution

The interpretation of the Constitution has been a topic of debate for decades, with justices adopting either liberal or strict interpretive tactics. Strict constructionism, also known as originalism, is a conservative legal philosophy that interprets the Constitution narrowly and precisely, aiming to limit federal powers and protect citizens' liberties. On the other hand, liberal justices argue for a broader interpretation, adapting the Constitution to modern times and recognising the evolution of word meanings. While strict constructionists focus on the literal text, liberals consider the intent and context of the Constitution, acknowledging the ongoing debate over its vague provisions. This ideological divide influences voting decisions, with conservative justices like Antonin Scalia embracing textualism, while liberals like Ruth Bader Ginsburg advocate for a more flexible approach.

Explore related products

Constitutional Interpretation: The Basic Questions

$17 $31.49

Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review

$25.58 $37.99

American Constitutional Interpretation (University Casebook Series)

$285

The Impeachments of Donald Trump: An Introduction to Constitutional Interpretation (Coursebook)

$57

A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law - New Edition (The University Center for Human Values Series)

$18.49 $19.95

Constitutional Interpretation (Research Handbooks in Comparative Constitutional Law series)

$355

Originalism vs textualism

The terms "liberal" and "strict" are used in the context of interpreting the Constitution, with the former allowing for broader interpretations and the latter advocating for a narrower reading of the text. Strict constructionism, also known as originalism, and textualism are two approaches that fall under the umbrella of conservative legal philosophies. They both deal with how to interpret the Constitution, but they do so in different ways.

Originalism focuses on interpreting the Constitution based on the meaning the words carried at the time of their writing. It embraces historical sources, such as legislative history, to determine the original public meaning of the text. Originalism is often associated with conservative politicians and justices, such as Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch, who aim to interpret the law as it was understood at the time of its promulgation.

Textualism, on the other hand, interprets legal texts, including the Constitution, based on the ordinary meaning of the text. Textualists ignore factors outside the text, such as the problem the law addresses or the intent of its drafters. Instead, they consider what the words and phrases meant when the constitutional provision was adopted. Textualism is associated with justices like Elena Kagan, who has stated that "we are all textualists now."

While originalism and textualism share similarities, they are distinct in their scope. Originalism specifically refers to interpreting the Constitution, while textualism applies to all legal texts. Additionally, originalism embraces historical context, whereas textualism rejects extra-textual considerations like intent.

In practice, the distinction between originalism and textualism can be nuanced and complex. For example, when interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, an originalist might argue that the drafters did not intend to include legal protection for LGBTQ individuals, as that was not the common understanding at the time. However, a textualist might argue that the text's ordinary meaning, regardless of the drafters' specific intent, should be considered, potentially leading to a different interpretation.

In conclusion, originalism and textualism are approaches to interpreting the Constitution that differ in scope and the consideration of historical context. Originalism focuses on the meaning of words at the time of writing, while textualism interprets the ordinary meaning of the text, setting aside external factors. The debate between these two schools of thought continues to shape legal discussions and Supreme Court decisions.

Judicial interpretation

Liberal Interpretation

Liberal justices tend to argue for a broader interpretation of the Constitution, recognising that it was written in a different time and context. They emphasise the need to adapt interpretations to the changing social and cultural landscape of the country. This approach allows for more flexibility and discretion in judicial decision-making, ensuring that the Constitution remains relevant and responsive to contemporary issues. Liberal justices, such as the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, focus on interpreting the Constitution and relevant laws and applying those interpretations to specific cases, backing their decisions with legal reasoning.

Strict Interpretation

Also known as strict constructionism or originalism, this approach advocates for a narrow and literal interpretation of the Constitution. Proponents of strict interpretation believe that the meaning of the text should be understood as it was originally intended at the time of its passage. This method seeks to limit judicial discretion and prevent broad interpretations that may conflict with the original understanding of the text. Politicians associated with strict constructionism include Richard Nixon, who appointed justices that aligned with this philosophy.

Textualism

Textualism is a specific type of strict interpretation where adherents believe that only the text of the relevant provision should be considered when applying the Constitution to a case. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a prominent textualist. Textualism stands in contrast to the liberal approach, which takes into account the broader social context and adapts interpretations accordingly.

Impact of Judicial Ideology

The ideological leanings of justices, whether liberal or conservative, have been shown to significantly influence their votes and interpretations of the Constitution. While justices have their unique interpretive styles, the lack of quantitative analyses on the effects of these styles has been noted. This gap in research is partly due to the challenge of measuring and defining these complex constitutional interpretation styles.

Liberal justices' approach

Liberal justices tend to favour a broad interpretation of the Constitution, acknowledging that it was written in a particular historical context and adapting their interpretation to a changing United States. They argue that a strict interpretation of the Constitution would be a straitjacket that would limit its ongoing usefulness.

Liberal justices do not simply vote in a liberal way in every case. Instead, they provide detailed opinions in which they interpret the Constitution and relevant laws and apply that interpretation to the case at hand. For example, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that interpretations of the Constitution should adapt to a changing United States.

In interpreting the Constitution, liberal justices may consider the public meaning of the Constitution at the time it was passed, which is a broader interpretation of originalism. This interpretation takes into account not only the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution but also those who read it when it was published in the newspapers and how they might have understood it.

The interpretation of the Constitution is not always clear-cut, and even the framers of the Constitution did not always agree on its meaning. The Federalist Papers and the anti-Federalist Papers debated the meaning of various provisions, and this debate has continued among Supreme Court justices.

In some cases, a liberal interpretation of the Constitution may be required to make the legislation effective, while in other cases, such an interpretation may defeat the legislature's intention.

Explore related products

American Constitutional Interpretation, 5th (University Casebook Series)

$433.55

American Revolution: A Constitutional Interpretation: 9

$7.59 $9

Contemporary Perspectives On Constitutional Interpretation

$52.43 $68.99

Constitutional Interpretation: Rights of the Individual, Volume 2

$185.7 $217.95

Constitutional Interpretation: Powers of Government, Volume 1

$94.32 $163.95

Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale Law Library Series in Legal History and Reference)

$35 $21.49

Strict constructionism

The use of the term "strict construction" in American politics is not new. The term was used regularly by members of the Democratic-Republican Party and by Democrats during the antebellum period when they argued that the powers of the federal government listed in Article I should be strictly construed. They embraced this approach in the hope that it would ensure that the bulk of governmental power would remain with the states and not be usurped by the federal government via novel interpretations of its powers.

The term "strict constructionism" is also used in American political discourse as an umbrella term for conservative legal philosophies, which tend to be more willing to strike down federal laws and regulations for exceeding the authorities given to them by the constitution. One example of this is the major questions doctrine, which limits the ability of the executive branch to enact broad or sweeping changes without express authorization from Congress.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a textualist, believing that one should only look at the text of the relevant provision when applying the Constitution to a case. He was a major proponent of textualism and rejected strict constructionism, saying that "no one ought to be" a strict constructionist because the most literal interpretation of a text can conflict with the commonly understood or original meaning.

Constitutional scholar John Hart Ely believed that "strict constructionism" is not really a philosophy of law or a theory of interpretation but a coded label for judicial decisions popular with a particular political party.

The role of federal government

The role of the federal government is a key point of contention between liberal and strict interpretations of the US Constitution. Strict constructionism, or originalism, is a theory that limits the interpretation of the Constitution to the literal meaning of the text at the time of its passage. This often results in a restriction of federal powers to only those "expressly" granted by the Constitution. Proponents of strict constructionism argue that this approach ensures that the bulk of governmental power remains with the states and prevents the federal government from usurping power through novel interpretations of the Constitution.

On the other hand, liberal justices tend to favour a more flexible interpretation of the Constitution, recognising that it was written in a different time and context. They argue that a strict interpretation can act as a "straitjacket", limiting the adaptability of the Constitution to modern times and societal changes. Liberal justices emphasise the vague and ambiguous nature of certain provisions in the Constitution, acknowledging that even the framers of the document disagreed on its interpretation.

The role of the federal government, therefore, becomes a matter of interpretation. Strict constructionists seek to constrain federal powers to those explicitly outlined in the Constitution, often resulting in the striking down of federal laws and regulations that exceed these authorities. This approach aligns with conservative political philosophies, which generally advocate for limited government intervention.

In contrast, liberals advocate for a more adaptable and context-dependent interpretation of the Constitution, which can lead to an expansion of federal powers to address contemporary issues and societal changes. This perspective aligns with a more progressive political outlook, which may favour a more proactive and involved federal government.

Ultimately, the debate between liberal and strict interpretations of the Constitution shapes the boundaries of federal power. While strict constructionism seeks to confine the federal government to its express constitutional mandates, liberal interpretations allow for a more dynamic and evolving understanding of federal authority, reflecting the changing needs and realities of the nation.

Frequently asked questions