What is strict constructionist? - Quora

Of course, now we have to be careful. Not every moral right should be legally enforced. I have the moral right to gratitude, but we don't want laws that require gratitude. For one thing, it won't be gratitude if it's compelled. For another, laws aren't about heart attitudes. They're about behavior. So the existence of moral rights doesn't go very far toward explaining why we should have judges constantly adding new legal rights that aren't enumerated in the Constitution. Therefore, I conclude that the idea doesn't make all that much sense either way. None of this moves me away from the strict constructionist view even a shred.

Bush: Roberts Is A Strict Constructionist - AMERICAblog News

Before 1801, the Jeffersonian Republicans were usually strict constructionists of the constitution.
Photo provided by
Pexels

Strict and loose constructionism in america - K9 …

But the issue is too serious for any of us to be joking aboutit. So what can “strict construction” really mean? That, perhaps, isthe wrong question, since even that phrase means different things to differentpeople. I think it is a coded expression for “conservative” whenused by President Bush, a way of indicating a political position whilepretending that judges should be above politics. Neither candidate seemed readyto admit that judicial appointments are important because they are in factpolitical. So they both fudged. But strict construction is itself a fudgynotion.

FREE Strict Vs. Loose Constructionists Essay

Even though strict constructionism was the idea behind the Jeffersonian Republican party, both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both have evidence against them which can prove that they were not strict constructionists.

But it is not bad law, or nolaw,just because it violates the tenets of strict construction.
Photo provided by
Pexels

Loose constructionism - Revolvy

The Federalists of the United States were known as the loose constructionists, where if there is something which the constitution does not state, then it should be allowed to be done.

Questioning strict constructionism - Democratic Underground

That is a phrase which should be familiar. It comes from thefirst sentence of our Declaration of Independence, and it explains the veryexistence of that document, which was a letter to the nations we hoped to joinas a sovereign state. We were seeking a kind of global approval for our action,and we went to great trouble in that document to justify our rebellion againstGreat Britain and its king, who was still, nominally, our king as well. Atpresent, of course, we find one presidential candidate mocking another forhaving “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” which sayssomething about how far we have come from that founding document –especially since the mocker professes to believe in a “strictconstruction” of this country’s foundational texts.

he believed in strict constructionism: ..

To conclude, even though the Jeffersonian Republicans were usually characterized as strict constructionists, they were able to adapt to what the countries people needed the most.

it was an act of loose constructionism.

I do want to note one further element. There's one way in which Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and other strict constructionists (whether they like the term or not; Scalia doesn't) are not pure strict constructionists, while Justice Thomas is closer to that. The former two accept precedent as grounds for deciding cases in ways that Justice Thomas does not. Now that Roe v. Wade is in effect, now that Lawrence v. Texas is in effect, it will be harder for weaker strict constructionists like Rehnquist and Scalia to pull away from these judge-created rights. They see the precedent as creating these rights, and those rights are thus real, even if they weren't in the Constitution and shouldn't have been created apart from an amendment.

Strict Constructionists and Judicial Activism

The Jeffersonian Republicans were known as strict constructionists for their views towards the constitution that if there is anything that is not in the constitution, then it cannot be done.