Jonah Patel
Strict constructionism is a legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits the powers of the federal government to those expressly granted by the United States Constitution. It is a theory that requires judges to interpret the Constitution and other legal documents literally, according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Strict constructionists believe that the text of the Constitution is not open to interpretation and that the words are to be taken literally. This philosophy is often associated with conservative politics and has been embraced by Republican presidents such as Nixon, Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Legal philosophy | Limits the powers of the federal government |
| Judicial interpretation | Requires judges to interpret the law literally |
| Textualism | Judges interpret the text as written |
| Originalism | Judges interpret the text as it was understood by the Founding Fathers |
| Political doctrine | Maintains that the Constitution is not open to interpretation |
| Judicial activism | Judges are seen as "strict constructionists" when they interpret the Constitution according to its exact lettering |
| Strict constructionism in criminal law | Application of strict construction is paramount in criminal law |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Judicial interpretation
Strict constructionism is often used as a political term, but it has a specific legal meaning. It is a theory that limits the interpretation of legal and constitutional language to the exact wording of the text. This means that the interpretation is literal and does not deviate from the original intent of the authors. It is often associated with conservative politics and used as a campaign slogan to appoint judges who will interpret the law in this manner.
The philosophy is based on the belief that the text of the Constitution is not open to interpretation and that the words are to be taken literally. It is a form of judicial interpretation that focuses on the exact wording of a statute, applying it as it is written. This is in contrast to liberal construction, where a doctrine of reasonability and fairness is applied to satisfy the intent of the statute.
Strict constructionism is often confused with textualism and originalism, but they are distinct concepts. Textualism is interpreting a document based on its words and structure, while originalism is reading the Constitution as a court would have immediately after its adoption, taking into account the original understanding of the ratifiers. Strict constructionism, on the other hand, focuses on the narrowest interpretation of the text, choosing the narrower meaning of a word or phrase if there are multiple possibilities.
In the United States, strict constructionism has been used by Republican presidents such as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump, who have all appointed or promised to appoint strict constructionist judges to the courts.
Benjamin Franklin's Constitutional Legacy
You may want to see also
Originalism
Original public understanding originalism bases the meaning of a constitutional provision on how the public that ratified it would have generally understood it. This form of originalism was championed by Antonin Scalia, who described himself as an originalist in his scholarly writings and public speeches. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has been described as a protégé of Scalia's, interprets the Constitution "as text" and understands it to have the meaning it had when it was ratified.
Racial Gerrymandering: Constitutional or Not?
You may want to see also
Textualism
While textualism and strict constructionism are distinct philosophies, they are often confused with each other. This may be due to a lack of clarity on what exactly strict constructionism is, as Professor Solum has suggested. It is important to exercise discipline in deploying these labels, as they have different meanings and implications for constitutional interpretation.
IRS DC Address: 1111 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$18.49 $19.95
Judicial activism
Strict constructionism is a legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits the powers of the federal government to those expressly granted by the United States Constitution. It requires judges to interpret the Constitution literally and narrowly, applying only the exact meaning of the text without considering other reasonable implications. This approach aims to prevent the federal government from usurping power from the states through novel interpretations of its powers.
The Warren Court era, which was characterised by judicial activism, was applauded by liberals and condemned by conservatives. However, in recent times, the political valence of "judicial activism" has shifted, with conservatives endorsing some activism by a conservative Supreme Court and liberals criticising these decisions.
The terms "strict constructionist" and "judicial activist" are often used as political slogans, with little regard for their legal or theoretical meanings. Constitutional scholar John Hart Ely believes that "strict constructionism" is a coded label for judicial decisions favoured by a particular political party, and the term is often used loosely to describe any conservative judge or legal analyst.
In conclusion, while strict constructionism is a specific legal philosophy of interpretation, judicial activism is a politically charged term that lacks a clear definition and is used primarily in political discourse to criticise certain judicial decisions.
Constitutional Isomers of Glucose: How Many Exist?
You may want to see also
Founding Fathers' intent
Strict constructionism is a legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits the powers of the federal government to those expressly granted to it by the US Constitution. It requires judges to interpret the Constitution and other legal documents according to the literal meaning of the text at the time of passage. This is often referred to as the "intent of the makers" or the "original intent of the Founding Fathers".
The philosophy holds that the text of the Constitution is not open to interpretation and that the words are to be taken literally. It is the opposite of judicial activism, which holds that the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted in a way that reflects modern sensibilities.
Strict constructionism is often associated with conservative judges and legal analysts. The term was popularised by Richard Nixon during his 1968 presidential campaign, in which he promised to appoint "strict constructionists" to the judiciary. However, the term has been used loosely and has been confused with the related but distinct concepts of textualism and originalism.
The Founding Fathers' intent, as interpreted by strict constructionists, is that the Constitution should be read and applied as it was originally understood by the Founding Fathers and the delegates to the 13 state conventions that ratified the document. This is based on the idea that the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with an eye to how courts would interpret it, and that fidelity to the Constitution requires interpreting it in a way familiar to those who adopted it.
Some of the Founding Fathers themselves, such as Thomas Jefferson, argued for a strict interpretation of federal powers, believing that the bulk of governmental power should remain with the states rather than the federal government. However, others, such as Washington, Hamilton, and Adams, took broad interpretations of the powers afforded to the federal government. An early attempt to limit the federal government's powers to only those expressly granted by the Constitution was rejected at the constitutional convention, suggesting that many of the Founding Fathers did not originally intend for the Constitution to be interpreted strictly in this manner.
Hunting and Fishing: Florida's Constitutional Rights
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Strict constructionism is a particular legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts the powers of the federal government only to those expressly, i.e., explicitly and clearly, granted to the government by the United States Constitution.
A strict constructionist is a judge who believes that the Constitution and other legal documents must be interpreted literally. They believe that the original intent of the Founding Fathers and the subsequent authors of the various amendments to the Constitution is the only valid means for interpreting the text.
Strict constructionists believe that the meaning of the Constitution is entirely contained within its text and that there is little room for interpretation. They believe that the text of a provision in a statute should be applied as it is written.
The opposite of strict constructionism is the living document approach or judicial activism. Judicial activists believe that the Constitution is a living document and that its interpretation must reflect modern sensibilities and situations.
