What the hell is a "strict constructionist"?

[dissent1977]

I know what the corporate media tells me a strict constructionist is, it is supposedly a judge who follows the Constitution exactly as it is written. It seems odd to me however that these "strict constructionists" the media keeps talking about seem to support Bush's policies no matter how unconstitutional they are. They believe that it is OK to detain people without charges, and without giving them access to a lawyer as long as their skin is olive colored. They seem to believe that there are certain "free speech zones" where we are allowed to criticize Bush, but they also believe that if we step outside of those free speech zones we can be arrested for voicing dissent. They seem to believe that there is no right to privacy, and that the government has the right to search our belongings without first obtaining a warrant. They also seem to believe that we don't have the right to have our vote counted if a Republican Secretary of State gives us some arbitrary deadline in which the vote count must end, even if they do everything they can to make sure that deadline is not met.

These do not seem like decisions that would be made by a strict constructionist who does not interpret the Constitution beyond it's own words. Yet we are asked to believe that people like Scalia and John Roberts are strict constructionists, despite the fact that they only support the Constitution when it suits their agenda.

We can not keep calling these people strict constructionists, because that term does not apply to them. They do not strictly interpret the Constitution, they violate the Constitution. These are right-wing judicial activists, and no spin the media puts on them is going to change that.

[mmonk]

1. What is a strict constructionist?

A bigot in a robe.

[Wetzelbill]

2. ha!

[Hippo_Tron]

14. LMAO that's great

[madeline_con]

3. Bush said...

Roberts will "strictly interpret the Constitution."

He doesn't always lie, it seems. He means exactly what he said. :scared:

[leftofthedial]

4. code speak for neotheocon fascist

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. A judge who believes that the Constitution does not protect

the privacy of the individual, a-la robert bork.

[Zomby Woof]

6. They ignore the 9th Amendment above all

I call them 'constitutional fundies', because they supposedly believe in a literal interpretation of the document, but are hypocritical about it, ignoring the Bill of Rights (except the 2nd Amendment, which they still misinterpret) and completely disregarding the 9th Amendment - i.e if it isn't spelled out, it doesn't exist.

[expatriot]

11. Exactly... they see the Constitution as a dead, static document....

...they do not regard the Amendments as actual parts of the Constitution - which they are... it is a living document.

For example, they accuse "liberal activist" judges of "legislating from the bench" when these "liberal activist" judges cite the equal protections clause of the fourteenth amendment as the precedent for their rulings. Yes, they liked the Constitution that was around in an America when only white males who owned land and were over the age of 21 could vote.

[liveoaktx]

7. Good Huff Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/karen-russell/why-the-astrict-constru_4517.html

[Blue-Jay]

8. The opposite of an "activist judge".

In other words, a Republican.

[dissent1977]

9. No they ARE activist judges

They are right-wing activist judges. The "strict constructionist" term is used to hide that by making them look like they are just doing what the constitution says. In reality however they are violating the constitution to help push forward their neo-fascist agenda.

[expatriot]

15. Exactly... either all judges are activist or none of them are.

The idea that "liberal" judges "legislate from the bench" and that "conservative" judges objectively interpret the Constitution is a bunch of hooey and for them (conservatives) to believe this I guess shouldn't surprise us since it is a very conservative mindset (I got the Absolute Truth on my side and all these damned liberals are trying to muddy it!).

The fact is, that liberal judges value certain precedents more than conservative judges. For example, "liberal" judges will cite the fourteenth amendment (equal protections) as justification for their rulings on the side of civil rights, etc. but conservatives will say they they are "legislating from the bench." geesh.

[LibertarianVoice]

10. I don't know that any of that describes Roberts...

Based on his record he appears to be significantly Libertarian.

By the way:
A constructionist is not someone who just follows the constitution as written. They are someone who views the constitution not as a set of letters and words, but as a set of ideas. Meaning that to really rule on whether something is constitutional they must look at the framer's intent, and the context in which it was written.

This is opposed to the school of thought which views the constitution as a "living document". Which basically means that you interpret the constitution's written letter based on your own opinions of what it should mean, disregarding what the founders actually intended it to mean.

A classic example of these two diametric viewpoints is the 2nd amendment.
For example: If you believe the constitution should be interpreted in a constructionist manner, then you recognize that it was the founder's intention that the entire citizenry be armed to repel an oppressive government.
However, those who believe in the living document philosophy, read the 2nd amendment verbatim and apply their own interpretation of it to conclude that it only applies to the establishment of state militia (Which is further interpreted to be represented by the modern National Guard).

[Zomby Woof]

18. You have it a little backwards

The framers DID intend the 2nd Amendment to be about what you interpreted as the "living document" philosophy. The words "well-regulated militia" do not just mean "the entire citizenry". And it wasn't included as a means of "repelling an oppressive government", but as a means of repelling unwanted invaders, which the early patriots came to see the British as being. This was key to frontierspeople living among the Indians, and not just city yokels keeping invading armies at bay. Your interpretation is a classic right-wing fantasy about the lone armed patriot taking on the Big Bad Government - a myth so ingrained it gave us Randy Weaver and David Koresh.

Garry Wills lays out the linguistic realities of the 2nd Amendment in his book "A Necessary Evil", by explaining what those words meant in the context of the times of the framers - right down to what "the people" meant. It would have the NRA putting their hands over their ears, saying "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!". Or gun-totin' cowboy libertarians right along with them.

In the main body of the Constitution, it states that Congress shall regulate the various militias. The 2nd Amendment states the militias shall be well-regulated. Seems the people who comprise the militias are under the umbrella of congressional regulation. So much for using them to stave off the oppressive government.

So the irony here is: You of the self-styled "founders' intent" school ought to be thankful for "the living document" philosophy, because it allowed many of you to pervert the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, among a good handful of other amendments, in order to suit your romanticized Davy Crockett fantasies.

Here's to the living document, as intended by the framers.

[LibertarianVoice]

26. I disagree

Back in the framers time the "militia" was every able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 45, armed with a personal weapon and trained in it's use.
To the framers, the right of individual weapon ownership and the militia were in fact the same thing, which is why they clause the two together.

And it is shown through the framer's writings, especially within context of the times they lived, that the chief reason for the 2nd amendment was serving as the final check and balance against a domestic government that intends to become despotic.
We Americans, up until around WW1, had a huge distrust of large standing armies as being the historic tools of despots to take control of a country and impose an oppressive militaristic regime.
The natural counter to this was seen as the people's militia.

While there can be an argument made for just how much all this applies to our modern world of complex ingrained democracies, I do believe that large standing armies are still an anathema to stable democracies.
Think about it: How much gallivanting around the world as policemen would we see if you had to call up a draft every time an administration wanted to take the easy road of international politics?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newyawker99]

23. Hi mixedreview!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Selatius]

13. Would strict constructionists support Roe. v. Wade if...

there exists a constitutional amendment in the document explicitly granting the right to have an abortion?

[Yupster]

20. I would think so

Of course.

If that were the case, I think many people who are strict constructionists today would decide the philosophy ain't all they thought it was, and would all of the sudden discover they believed in a Constitution that should be alive for interpretation.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. One who misinterpreters half the constitution and ignores the other half

[Swamp Rat]

17. Strict constructionist = a brat who refuses to play with Legos

because they are made by "yuropeeons" or Lincoln Logs because they were made by "damn yankees." :D

[Sgent]

19. The real defination

is a bit more nuanced than what has been represented by most on the board, although the above poster gave a pretty good definition of strict constructionist vs. living document.

A strict constructionist looks at the constitution, sees no right of privacy, and that's it. I disagree with it, although to be honest I personally would have a hard time upholding Griswold as written -- it stretches the very definition of living document to breaking IMHO (and of most legal scholars).

Regardless, your favorite person of all time, Ken Starr, has actually written a fairly good book outlining the judicial philosophy. Its an easy read, and is written for the layman. If you really want to learn about this viewpoint, I highly recommend it. That being said, get it from your library so you don't put money in his pocket.

[TahitiNut]

21. It's actually very simple.

The Constitution, originally designed to strictly limit the powers of government, owes it's sole legitimacy to the authority and freedoms of a People to establish that government at all ... and eradicate it, too.

In Orwelliarepublicryptofascistspeak, a 'strict constructionist' is one who can find all kinds of ways in which the founders really meant to give almost unlimited global power to the Executive and give superior rights and entitlements to corporations (but they just forgot, I guess) ... but can't seem to find a single way in which (ordinary) People have freedoms that aren't specifically identified at least twice and have a profit-making potential (unless they get them through a corporation).

[wli]

22. Republican for "will legislate the fascist agenda from the bench"

[greekspeak]

24. It is code for "ultra conservative activist judge"

A mere euphemism. You say, "These are right-wing judicial activists, and no spin the media puts on them is going to change that." You got it, bub.

[ThomWV]

25. Self Deleted

I was being far to mean so I deleted what I wrote - but a lot of you need to take a high school Civics class.

[gulliver]

27. A political buzz phrase used to deodorize "strict conservatives" n/t

[baldguy]

28. A liar.

A "strict constructionist" would not have allowed Clinton to be impeached.

A "strict constructionist" would lead the impeachment of Bush.

There are no strict constructionists in the Republican Party.