Constitutional interpretation: Contstructionist or Expansionist?

[Selwynn]

Poll question: Constitutional interpretation: Contstructionist or Expansionist?

How should the constitution of the United States be interpreted by the courts? Should it be treated in which way:

1. Strict Constructionist - decisions should be based on an attempted to understand what the founders literally meant with no concern for context. The country is founded on guaranteed principles and systems that are not disputable, or open to challenge at any point, and we need such timeless grantees to protect over selves from the take over of tyranny or loss of freedom by courts that would legislate against principles outlined in the constitution.

2. Loose Constructionist - decisions should be based on an attempted to understand the literal intention of the founders primarily, but with acknowledgement that history may create some circumstances for which the founders could never have planned which require judicial interpretation (In other words: judges what would never argue against any part of the given constitution but would support constitutional amendments pretty freely if they deemed them warranted.)

3. Narrow Expansionist - while it is important to seek to understand the original intentions of the framers, ultimately the constitution, like this nation, is a living breathing document that must be continuously reexamined and reinterpreted in the fact of the ever changing historical situation. All interpretations should strive to be seen as in harmony with the original intent, but the need for reexamining the justice of the law based not simply on historical constitutional understanding but also the realities of the modern situation is important.

4. Broad Expansionist - the constitution like any other thing from history, must always and forever be reexamined, reinterpreted and in occasionally modified to speak authoritatively to the situation of the modern day. The original intent of the framers is sometimes totally irrelevant. The framers could not possibly be expected to have any understanding of issues like privacy rights, or the full scope of modern international relations, etc. when the constitution was created for thirteen states. It becomes crucial to justice and democracy to treat the document as a beginning point and not an ending point for justice, freedom and fairness - and it is the courts responsibility to interpret and expand/contract where necessary the provisions outlined in the constitution.


I'm sure my definitions reflect some bias, but I did my best to be even-handed. What do you think ?

[IrateCitizen]

1. I voted "narrow expansionist" (n/t)

[tom_paine]

2. Narrow expansionist...just like Thomas Jefferson

[IrateCitizen]

3. It appears that Justice Rehnquist has joined us!

Just who in the hell voted "strict constructionist", anyway??? :wtf:

[Selwynn]

4. Broad Expansionist baby - f*ck the founders! :D

Hehe

I have a better argument for my position, but I just thought that sounded funny. :D

[rucky]

7. I couldn't tell from your wording

My question is this: Here we are with a republican controlled house, white house and supreme court. What if they decide to go broad expansionist on our asses? I mean, i'd be all for it if it meant broadening our rights, but it could work both ways, no?

[Selwynn]

8. Yes - absolutely. It's definately a risk.

The problem is expansionist ideas is that its a huge risk - given the right kind of people, it would lead to a more just and more fair society than would otherwise be possible.

Given the wrong kind of peoeple, it could lead to the worst tyrannay imaginable.

The alluring quality of strict constructionism, is that although cannot lead to the best possible society imanginable, it also protects against teh worst possible society imanginable. So its safer.

Honestly though, I believe that there really is no such thing as a strick constructionist approach. Peoeple in power use the Constituation to justify any position they want depending on what suits them. They'll claim "constructionst" if that helps their aims, and "expansionsist" if that helps them.

I'm my world, the ultimate litmus test for the rightness or wrongness of a law would be the universal declaration of human rights. :)

[MissMarple]

5. Not me, but it doesn't mean he is a Rehnquist clone.

"we need such timeless guarantees to protect ourselves from the takeover of tyranny or the loss of freedom by courts that would legislate against principles outlined in the constitution." Would that apply to something like the Patriot Act?

Sorry, this was a reply to poster #3. :D

[Selwynn]

6. On review, I don't think I separated broad/narrow expansionist well..

They both sound pretty similar.. oh well, I did my best. :)