Founders' Intent: A Loose Interpretation Of The Constitution

The United States Constitution can be interpreted in two ways: strict construction and loose construction. Strict constructionists base their decisions on the direct text of the Constitution and do not usually consider external factors such as historical findings. Loose constructionists, on the other hand, believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in the context of historical, scientific, and political circumstances. They view the Constitution as a living document that should be interpreted and applied circumstantially. This school of thought is often associated with the belief that the document should be interpreted to meet the needs of the time.

Explore related products

The EU between Federal Union and Flexible Integration: Interdisciplinary European Studies

$122.81 $159.99

A Student's Guide to Lagrangians and Hamiltonians

$29.99 $36

Lagrangian & Hamiltonian Mechanics

$29.43 $52

Mastering Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Dynamics With Python (Golden Dawn Engineering)

$9.99 $29.99

No-Nonsense Classical Mechanics: A Student-Friendly Introduction

$33.95

The Theoretical Minimum: What You Need to Know to Start Doing Physics

$13.75 $18.99

Loose constructionists believe the Constitution is a 'living document

The United States Constitution can be interpreted in two ways: strict construction and loose construction. Strict constructionists base their decisions directly on the text of the Constitution and do not usually take into account external factors such as historical findings. They are likely to believe in the concept of originalism, meaning that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was in the late 18th century when it was first written.

Loose constructionists, on the other hand, believe that the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted to meet the needs of the time. They do not solely rely on the text of the document but also consider scientific findings and historical evidence to provide the most modern ruling. They believe that the Constitution should be interpreted and applied circumstantially based on historical and social findings. For example, loose constructionists believe that the Constitution once allowed racial segregation because public opinion favoured it, and that it became unconstitutional only as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

Two examples of loose construction are the Supreme Court rulings for Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education, where judges recognised that rights should change to best meet the needs of the time and the people.

Those who oppose the idea of loose construction argue that interpreting the Constitution as a living document will destroy it. They believe that the Constitution is a legal document and that interpreting it based on current social attitudes will render it useless.

They interpret the Constitution based on historical and social findings

Interpreting the US Constitution loosely, or using "loose construction", means that an individual does not base their decision solely on the text of the document. Instead, they use scientific findings and historical evidence to provide a modern ruling.

Loose constructionists believe that the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted and applied circumstantially based on historical and social findings. They argue that the document should be interpreted to meet the needs of the time. For example, two examples of loose construction would be the Supreme Court rulings for Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education, where judges recognised that rights should change to best meet the needs of the people.

Strict constructionists, on the other hand, base their decisions directly on the text of the Constitution and do not usually consider historical findings. They believe in the concept of originalism, meaning that the Constitution should be interpreted as the framers of the document interpreted it during the late 18th century. Thomas Jefferson, for example, maintained a strict constructionist view because he did not want future political leaders to abuse their power by interpreting the Constitution differently than it was written.

Those in favour of interpreting the Constitution using its original meaning as an interpretive approach point to its long historical pedigree and its adherence to the democratic will of the people who originally framed and ratified the Constitution. They argue that a law, in order to function as a law, must have a fixed or settled meaning until it is formally amended or discarded. Proponents of originalism also argue that this approach limits judicial discretion, preventing judges from deciding cases in accordance with their own political views.

Critics of originalism argue that it may be difficult to establish the original meaning of the Constitution, and that judges may simply choose the original view that supports their political beliefs. They also argue that originalism requires judges to act as historians, a role for which they may not be well-suited.

They believe the Constitution should be interpreted circumstantially

Interpreting the Constitution circumstantially, or loosely, is a viewpoint that has been held by many modern-day politicians, government officials, teachers, and citizens. This approach, known as loose construction, involves applying an analysis of history, scientific findings, or political circumstances to a legal case, alongside the ruling of the Constitution.

Loose constructionists often believe that the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted and applied differently based on historical and social findings. They argue that the Constitution should change over time as social attitudes evolve, without the need for a formal constitutional amendment. For example, they believe that racial segregation was constitutional from 1877 to 1954 because public opinion favored it, and it only became unconstitutional after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

Those who interpret the Constitution loosely believe that it should be interpreted to meet the needs of the time and the people. This viewpoint is in contrast to strict construction, where decisions are based directly on the text of the Constitution without considering external factors. Strict constructionists, like Thomas Jefferson, aim to prevent future political leaders from abusing their power by interpreting the Constitution differently than it was originally written.

However, some critics argue that interpreting the Constitution as a living document gives too much power to the interpreters and undermines the rule of law. They believe that the Constitution should be interpreted reasonably, giving the text the meaning it had when it was adopted. This approach, known as originalism, involves determining the original public meaning of the constitutional text at the time it became law through dictionaries, grammar books, legal documents, and the background legal events that gave rise to the provision.

Explore related products

LAGRANGIAN AND HAMILTONIAN MECHANICS: SOLUTIONS TO THE EXERCISES

$38.16 $43

Lagrangian Mechanics For The Non-Physicist (The Modern Physics Series)

$29.95

An Introduction to Hamiltonian Mechanics (Birkhäuser Advanced Texts Basler Lehrbücher)

$54.99

The Variational Principles of Mechanics (Dover Books on Physics)

$27.3 $30

Solved Problems in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics (Grenoble Sciences)

$90.07 $109.99

Essentials of Hamiltonian Dynamics

$42.27 $68

They believe the Constitution should be interpreted reasonably

Interpreting the US Constitution loosely, or "broadly", is often referred to as "loose construction". This approach requires an analysis of history, scientific findings, or political circumstances, in addition to the text of the Constitution, to inform a legal case ruling. Those who favour loose construction are often referred to as "living constitutionalists" or "loose constructionists". They believe that the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted and applied circumstantially, based on historical and social findings. This means that the Constitution should be interpreted reasonably, with consideration for the needs of the time.

Loose constructionists argue that the Constitution should be interpreted and applied differently depending on the specific circumstances, taking into account historical and social context. They believe that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time as social attitudes change. For example, living constitutionalists believe that racial segregation was constitutional from 1877 to 1954 because public opinion favoured it. It only became unconstitutional as a result of the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which they believe changed and improved the Constitution.

Those who interpret the Constitution loosely believe that this approach is necessary to ensure a functioning government. Strict constructionism does not allow for judicial review, so unconstitutional laws could not be overturned by the Supreme Court. A loose constructionist interpretation of the Constitution allows for a more democratic system, as it enables the document to evolve with society's values and standards of decency.

However, some argue that interpreting the Constitution loosely could lead to issues. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, warned that treating the Constitution as a living document would "'destroy' it". He argued that the Constitution is a legal document and should be interpreted as such, with a focus on the original meaning and intent. This approach, known as originalism, is often favoured by strict constructionists. They believe that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was in the late 18th century when it was written.

They believe the Constitution should be interpreted to meet the needs of the time

Those who believe that the Constitution should be interpreted loosely are known as loose constructionists or broad constructionists. They believe that the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted and applied circumstantially based on historical and social findings. This means that the Constitution should be interpreted to meet the needs of the time.

Loose constructionists do not solely base their decisions on the text of the Constitution. Instead, they use scientific findings and historical evidence to provide the most modern ruling. They believe that the Constitution should be interpreted differently as social attitudes change, even without the adoption of a formal constitutional amendment. For example, they believe that racial segregation was constitutional from 1877 to 1954 because public opinion favoured it, and that it became unconstitutional only as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

Loose constructionists argue that interpreting the Constitution as a living document is the only way to have a functioning government. Strict constructionism does not allow for judicial review, so unconstitutional laws could not be overturned by the Supreme Court. They also believe that the more interpretation that is required, the more democratic the system becomes.

However, critics of loose construction argue that it could lead to a loss of rights and powers. They believe that the Constitution should be interpreted as a legal document, with a fixed meaning that does not change over time. This approach, known as originalism, holds that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was during the late eighteenth century when it was adopted. Originalists believe that interpreting the Constitution as a living document will destroy it by rendering it useless and giving it whatever meaning people want.

Frequently asked questions