Jonah Patel
Strict constructionism, or original intent, is a theory that limits the interpretation of legal and constitutional language to the literal meaning of the text at the time of its passage. This theory is in contrast to a loose construction of laws, which allows broader discretion by judges to determine intent in legal language. Strict constructionism is often used as an umbrella term for conservative legal philosophies, which tend to be more willing to strike down federal laws and regulations that exceed the authorities given to them by the constitution.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Strict constructionism | A theory limiting interpretation of legal and constitutional language to the literal meaning of this language at the time of passage |
| A hyperliteral interpretation of the US Constitution | |
| An approach to constitutional interpretation that resembles what we today call originalism | |
| A coded label for judicial decisions popular with a particular political party | |
| A term used as an umbrella term for conservative legal philosophies | |
| A form of judicial interpretation of a statute | |
| The opposite of liberal construction | |
| Originalism | Reading the Constitution as a court would have read it immediately after its adoption |
| Reading the Constitution as it was understood by the ratifiers | |
| Reading the Constitution as an objective, informed person would have read it | |
| Textualism | Interpreting a document's text according to its "objective meaning," without regard to what its makers thought about it |
| Grounded in the belief that the role of judges is to enforce the Constitution and laws that conform to the Constitution |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Originalism
Strict constructionism, on the other hand, is a hyper-literal theory of interpretation that provides that a text be interpreted by reading the words as they come, without reference to the context or conditions in which they were written. In other words, strict constructionism limits interpretation to the literal meaning of the text at the time of passage. This theory contrasts with loose constructionism, which allows broader discretion by judges to determine intent in legal language.
While some may argue that originalism is a new invention, this claim has been disputed by scholars who point to the long history of originalism in American constitutional tradition. Originalism is not the same as strict constructionism, and proponents of originalism, such as Supreme Court Justice Scalia, have rejected the label of strict constructionist.
God and the US Constitution: A Mentioning Mystery
You may want to see also
Textualism
The bottom-line principle of textualism is that the enacted text of a law is to be given supreme deference as the ultimate repository of legal authority. As Judge Willett wrote, "Text is the alpha and the omega of the interpretive process."
Understanding the Constitution's Intent
You may want to see also
Judicial interpretation
Strict constructionists argue that the text of a provision in a statute should be applied as it is written. This form of construction is the opposite of liberal construction, which applies the doctrine of reasonability and fairness while interpreting to satisfy the overlying objective and intent of the statute. In criminal law, the application of strict construction is paramount as it complements the rule of lenity, which limits the scope of statutory interpretation in penal statutes.
Originalism, on the other hand, requires examining not just the Constitution's text but also previous history, contemporaneous law, and commentary. It involves reading the Constitution as a court would have immediately after its adoption. Originalism can be traced back to the 18th century, when courts used "original understanding" or "original meaning" to interpret documents. "Original understanding" refers to the understanding of the delegates to the 13 state conventions that ratified the Constitution. "Original meaning" refers to how an objective observer would have understood the document when the evidence behind it did not show a consistent "intent of the makers".
Textualism, as defined by Judge Willett, is the belief that the role of judges is to enforce the Constitution and laws that conform to the Constitution. Textualists interpret a document's text according to its objective meaning, without regard to what its makers thought about it. If the meaning of the words is clear, the judge does not go beyond the text. If the words are ambiguous, the judge attempts to discern their meaning using well-developed rules of construction.
Some scholars, such as John Hart Ely, argue that strict constructionism is not a philosophy of law or a theory of interpretation but a coded label for judicial decisions that align with a particular political party. The term is often used loosely to describe any conservative judge or legal analyst. For example, in the 2000 campaign trail, George W. Bush promised to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court, referring to Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. However, it is worth noting that Thomas considers himself an originalist, and Scalia rejected the label of strict constructionist, calling it "a degraded form of textualism".
Understanding the Constitution: A Quick Read or a Lifetime Study?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Conservative legal philosophies
Strict constructionism is a theory that interprets the US Constitution literally, based on the original understanding of the text at the time of its passage. This means that the text of a provision in a statute should be applied as it is written, without considering other reasonable implications. This is in contrast to liberal construction, where a doctrine of reasonability and fairness is applied to satisfy the intent of the statute.
The theory is based on the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted by its "original meaning", or "original understanding", which is how an objective observer or the ratifiers of the document would have understood it. This is in contrast to "textualism", which is a theory that interprets a document based on its objective meaning, without regard to what its creators thought about it. Textualism is more concerned with the enacted text of a law, and if the meaning is clear, no further interpretation is needed.
Strict constructionism is often associated with conservative political beliefs, particularly those who wish to limit the powers of the federal government. This is because a strict, literal interpretation of the Constitution can limit the ability of the executive branch to enact broad or sweeping changes without express authorization from Congress. For example, Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers, argued against the constitutionality of a national bank, as he believed that the federal government should not be able to usurp power from the states through novel interpretations of its powers.
However, it is important to note that the term "strict constructionism" is often used loosely and pejoratively, and many prominent conservative legal figures, such as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, have rejected the label, arguing that a text should not be construed strictly or leniently, but reasonably.
Federalism's Constitutional Roots: Exploring the Document's Core Principles
You may want to see also
Loose construction
In contrast to strict construction, loose construction recognises that the meaning of a text may not always be clear from the words alone. By considering external factors, such as the historical context, contemporaneous laws, and the intent of the drafters, judges can better understand the purpose and intended scope of the text. This approach is particularly important when interpreting vague or ambiguous language in a document.
The loose construction method aligns with the original understanding of how the Constitution should be interpreted. The "intent of the makers" was a well-established principle even before the Constitution was written, and it guided how courts interpreted legal documents. The original understanding of the Constitution was the understanding of the delegates to the 13 state conventions that ratified the document.
Proponents of loose construction argue that it ensures the interpretation of the Constitution remains reasonable and fair. By considering the broader context and objectives, this approach aims to prevent narrow interpretations that could limit the effectiveness or applicability of the law. Loose construction also allows for judicial discretion, recognising that a rigid adherence to literal meaning may not always lead to just outcomes.
Seat Belt Laws: Unconstitutional Infringement or Necessary Regulation?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Strict construction of the US Constitution, or strict constructionism, is a theory that requires the text of a provision in a statute to be applied as it is written, or interpreted literally.
Textualism requires a reader to interpret a particular provision by considering context, whereas strict constructionism does not allow for this. Textualism makes the most sense when interpreting federal statutes.
Originalism requires examining the Constitution's text, previous history, and contemporaneous law and commentary. Originalism and strict constructionism are not the same, but in rare situations, originalism may call for strict construction.
The opposite of strict constructionism is liberal construction, where the doctrine of reasonability and fairness is applied while interpreting to satisfy the overlying objective and intent of the statute.
In 1819, US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a majority opinion determining that the federal government's effort to create a national bank was constitutional.
