"Strict-Constructionist"???

[NativeTexan]

Would SOMEONE please explain to me how THESE TWO terms can be linked together to mean ANYTHING other than someone who builds buildings straight from the blueprints with no variations???

[Buzz Clik]

1. That's what it means.

You must have observed someone straying from the original design...

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. You are right in one

Usually, "strict constructionist" means someone who believes that the United States Constitution should be interpreted as narrowly as possible, ie in accordance with the presumed intentions of the Framers.

For example, nowhere does the Constitution use the word "privacy." Therefore, according to strict constructionists, the Constitution does not provide any guarantee of privacy. Any court rulings which claim otherwise are in violation of the Constitution. Laws which protect privacy may be overturned at any time, for any reason, without recourse to a claim of Constitutional protection.

Strict constructionists are, for all intents and purposes, no different from theological literalists who insist that the world must be flat because the Bible says so.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. But a strict constructionist will leave the path so to speak for issues

like liability concerning motor vehicles which obviously were not included in the Constitution in 1789. (BTW, one can make an argument for the right to an abortion as it is not banned in the Constitution as negative law.)

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. The problem comes in from the general philosophy of most strict constructionists

The similarities between strict constructionists and Biblical literalists are extensive, as both groups generally embrace the same right wing philosophies. They support theocratic government, oppose civil rights legislation and work against anything deemed to be "anti-corporate."

It seems to me that, much more often than not, "strict constructionist" is a label used by reactionaries to support their agenda rather than an actual doctrine of jurisprudence. By screaming, "That is not what the Founders intended!" they work against the wall of separation and all forms of free speech they personally find offensive. I have never -- not once -- heard of a self-described strict constructionist who supported the First Amendment.

[NativeTexan]

7. CORRECT......and they NEVER will be heard saying......

......that the "Founders never intended AK-47's or other assault weapons".

[derby378]

15. But what if I were to own an AK-47?

It would be kind of like me saying that the First Amendment never guaranteed you the right to a telephone, a fax machine, Internet access, or even a telegraph - as none of these were invented until long after the Constitution was ratified.

[Buzz Clik]

8. True, but typical of any hardliners...

... they only are hardliners until they are in power. Suddenly, "some animals are more equal than others" and the strict interpretation is ditched. We see this religion and pseudo-libertarians on a daily basis.

[Buzz Clik]

9. ... nor is there a right to an abortion. State by state.

[NativeTexan]

4. But would that not actually be a.........

........"Strict-Constitutionalist"??? I mean, I actually know how they are using the term, but it seems kinda silly, at the very least.

Also, it seems to me that a "strict-constructionist" is someone who will say EXACTLY what the Bushies want to hear!!!

[Buzz Clik]

There are no strict constructionists with power in the Bush administration.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. You are misunderstanding the word constructionist

"Constructionism" is a doctrine of looking at how something is put together, ie how it is constructed. A strict constructionist is someone who (in theory at least) looks at how a law or legal document was constructed and, from that, derives an opinion on whether it is valid or can be applied to a particular situation. As a philosophy of jurisprudence, it applies to all laws and existing precedents which might come under a judge's review and not just the Constitution. Technically it is different from originalism (looking only at the purpose something was written and the intent of those who wrote it) although there is considerable overlap.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Indeedy. Your implication is clear.

Laws which protect privacy may be overturned at any time, for any reason, without recourse to a claim of Constitutional protection.

Referring unambiguously, of course, to Roe v Wade, which hangs by the thinnest thread.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. The Constitution says nothing about abortion. Therefore.... n/t

[NativeTexan]

12. Absolutely nothing!

Go figure....

[damntexdem]

13. It means strictly constructing Constitutional interpretations from one's own ideology.

This is what it has always meant for the rightwing -- and it is now demonstrated by the rightwing majority on the SCOTUS.

[NativeTexan]

14. Now THAT seems realistic!!!

And I am sure that YOURS is correct!