US Members: Are you a strict or loose constructionist?

Interesting. I just made a post that included this topic in passing :lol:.

I am more of a loose constructionist. Some members of the Constitutional Convention were actually against the Bill of Rights because it enumerated rights and felt that the government would see this as an instrument limiting the people's rights rather than serving as a way to enshrine them in the collective memory of the denizens of the newly minted United States. I believe that the Constitution is a product of its time that also includes the mechanism and vagueness to ensure that it does not ever become "dated (Sections like the 7th Amendment's, "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars" excepted :lol.

I can, however, see why there are merits to strict interpretation. Should the Federal Government have the ability to make anything into a federal matter? Does violence against women deserve congressional laws under the guise of the Commerce Clause*?


* I am all for laws against violence to women and anyone, but using the Commerce Clause to get jurisdiction is iffy at best. At that point, anything falls under the Commerce Clause.

 

As long as the Constitution is applied to situations and not the other way around, we're all good. But it was designed as a framework for government, hence all the legislation that isn't amendments to it. Naturally its power extends over more than its express language.

 

The constitution was meant to be an evolving idea . Even playing devils advocate and saying it wasn't , time would then render it irrelevant due to necessary change for whatever reason .

 

I'm a strict constitutionist with a few exceptions. One of the biggies would be for gay rights. However, one could argue that it is already protected.

 

Neither. I'd just as soon scrap the antiquated document and start anew.

 

On one hand, I agree. That'd be nice.

But on the other, I'd be afraid, of just what would go onto that blank document. Whether or not some of the parts, pertaining to politicians in general, especially, would be put into writing.

As for where I stand. I voted the third option, because I fall into the 'Mix/Other' category.

 

i eat the constitution, will be fined several trillion dollars to no higher power because without the sacred parchment goverment literally collapsed as all rules were lost the second it passed to the gut

---------- Post added 21st Oct 2014 at 10:02 PM ----------

aka the plot to national treasure 3

 

The plot to National Treasure 3 will be that the anti-Christ has the Constitution; Nicholas Cage has to find a way to re-capture it for the sake of those Left Behind.

 

I don't entirely disagree with the concept, but it would be too big a task for me to design a government to work better than it for 300+ million people and trillions of dollars. I'd rather grow a country from the bottom up like in Civilization hehe.

 

Strict constructionist of the Constitution. However, while I am a Republican, I don't have a creepy boner for the document like some seem too.

 

I'm a mix of both. I guess I'm not entirely sure. Without loose construction, gay marriage and women's rights wouldn't be protected. However, loose construction can make the federal gov't too powerful, which is something I'm not too much of a fan of.

 

It's funny because some of the founders (Jefferson included) intended for there to be a new constitution drafted about once a decade.

While today the U.S. Constitution is held in such high regard (and rightfully so), sometimes people revere and worship it to such a level best saved for the Ark of the Covenant. In order for a constitution to work, it HAS to be open for amendment or interpretation and not etched in stone.

 

I really don't care at this point because cops just put people in jail for no reason, and then days, or weeks later they're locked up in prison, even though they're innocent and did nothing. Well, that and I'm Scottish, but that was probably obvious.

 

There's one thing I don't get about this thread... can't one be neither?

 

I'm anti-founding fathers originalism.

Constitution worship that I've observed from my friends from all sides of the American political spectrum is a little sickening too

 

Strict constructionalists don't even really exist except in their own minds. It's just another form of fundamentalist thought that suffers from that classic issue: that the past the fundamentalist harkens back to never existed.

Besides, you can tell they don't mean it by their interpretations of the general welfare clause, the way they tend to ignore the 9th amendment's existence and their disdain for the 14th.

 

The document itself says it's a living document.

 

I am a strict constructionist because we need to keep in mind the views of slavers.