What is the Difference Between Strict Constructionist and Loose Constructionist?

Answer 1

Strict Constructionists believe a narrow, strict and literal interpretation of the express language of the Constitution is proper. This judicial philosophy requires a court to apply the exact written text of the law or regulation to the issue before the court. Otherwise known as "plain meaning," the court must apply the statute as written; there must be no interpretation or drawing inferences.

The problem with the Strict Construction philosophy is that its adherents refuse to address ambiguity in language, or that the meaning of words can change over the years. And, if the traditional meaning was applied by a court, would current citizens understand the court's decision. Example: Take the word "appeasement." Prior to WWII, appeasement was another word for "negotiation." Today, it means cowardly yielding to a bulling opponent. If "appeasement" was written into the Constitution or statute, if a Strict Constructionist used the pre-WWII interpretation of the word, would contemporary readers understand the court's intent?

Loose Constructionists believe the opposite; the literal language of the Constitution or statutes must be interpreted in light of contemporary society, social conduct and common understanding of language. As Justice Marshall wrote in McCulloch, "Sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (S.Ct. 1819-03-06)

Complicating this philosophical debate is that each side has never adhered strictly to their own principles. Jefferson, the hero of Strict Constructionists, often took a Loose Constructionist approach while President. Hamilton, hero to the Loose Constructionists, often argued for strict application of the Constitution in certain situations.

Last, do not confuse Strict Construction with Originalism. Originalism (the term came into usage in the 1980's) is a philosophy based on the principle that courts are merely to uphold the law, not interpret, "create" or amend laws. The latter powers are, under Originalism, reserved strictly for the legislative branch.

Answer 2

To answer your question, let me use the American Constitution as an example.

Thomas Jefferson believed in a strict construction of the Constitution; that means, he believed people should follow exactly what was stated and allowed in the document. Anything not given to the federal government in the Constitution would be given to the states and the people.

On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton believed in a loose construction of the Constitution; that means, he thought you could take whatever action you wanted, as long as the document did not specifically say you couldn't do it.

So, a strict constructionist would feel the need to follow the specific instructions and rules of something, while a loose constructionist would feel it was acceptable to find a loophole, or do something not directly forbidden.

Answer 3

A loose constructionist meant that unless the constitution directly prohibited an act, it could be done. Strict constructionists believed that constitution had to directly approve an act. if it wasn't in the constitution it was thought to be unconstitutional and wong

Answer 4

Strict Constructionists believe a narrow, strict and literal interpretation of the express language of the Constitution is proper. This judicial philosophy requires a court to apply the exact written text of the law or regulation to the issue before the court. Otherwise known as "plain meaning," the court must apply the statute as written; there must be no interpretation or drawing inferences.

The problem with the Strict Construction philosophy is that its adherents refuse to address ambiguity in language, or that the meaning of words can change over the years. And, if the traditional meaning was applied by a court, would current citizens understand the court's decision. Example: Take the word "appeasement." Prior to WWII, appeasement was another word for "negotiation." Today, it means cowardly yielding to a bulling opponent. If "appeasement" was written into the Constitution or statute, if a Strict Constructionist used the pre-WWII interpretation of the word, would contemporary readers understand the court's intent?

Loose Constructionists believe the opposite; the literal language of the Constitution or statutes must be interpreted in light of contemporary society, social conduct and common understanding of language. As Justice Marshall wrote in McCulloch, "Sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (S.Ct. 1819-03-06)

Complicating this philosophical debate is that each side has never adhered strictly to their own principles. Jefferson, the hero of Strict Constructionists, often took a Loose Constructionist approach while President. Hamilton, hero to the Loose Constructionists, often argued for strict application of the Constitution in certain situations.

Last, do not confuse Strict Construction with Originalism. Originalism (the term came into usage in the 1980's) is a philosophy based on the principle that courts are merely to uphold the law, not interpret, "create" or amend laws. The latter powers are, under Originalism, reserved strictly for the legislative branch.