Seriously...what is a "strict constructionist?"

[forintegrity]

Bush called Harriet that in defending his SC nomination.

Is he making up shit again?



http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/04/miers/index.html

[Avalux]

1. It's code.

Means fundamentalist extremist whose sole purpose is to make the bible the law of the land.

[AirmensMom]

6. Actually, if the bible was the law of the land,

we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. (I'm not saying we shouldn't have separation of church and state, so don't flame me.)

[high density]

9. I'm not so sure, there's some crazy crap hidden in the bible...

...though I'm far from a bible expert. I was reading an article in the Christian Science Monitor today about a person who was given a death sentence after some jurors, using the bible, convinced a holdout juror that the death sentence was acceptable punishment. (Leviticus 24:20-21, which reads in part: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.... He that killeth a man, he shall be put to death." and Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.")

After it was exposed that the bible was involved in the deliberation process, the death sentence was thrown out and the man will serve life.

Here's the article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1004/p03s01-usju.html

[AirmensMom]

12. You're right about that.

But these people pretend to be Christians ... and they're doing stuff that Christ would never have done, while they invoke his name. They do find individual verses that they use to support their own views. I've never been good at arguing that stuff and frankly don't think it's worth the time. My in-laws quote bible versus all the time, but just the ones they want, and just in their own interpretation. It's so typical.

The bottom line is that they are distorting the message of Jesus and turning a lot of people off to religion. If they were truly following the bible, they would be following Christ's example, which they are not doing.

On edit: Thanks for the link. I'll read it in the morning.

[Art_from_Ark]

18. Wow, if the Bible were the law of the land,

then people could be put to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/inj_list.html

And of course, we would be prohibited from eating pork and shellfish, as well as leavened bread on certain days.

And divorce would be allowed only in the case of infidelity.

And "frisky" girls could be stoned (with rocks, not marijuana) in the public square.

[eaprez]

2. It is a person who applies the law the way the right thinks it should

be applied. If you apply it with a different point of views then you 'legislate' from the bench.

[jim3775]

3. Someone that thinks the constitution cannot be interpreted to apply

to modern ideals as in "abortion wasn't around when the constitutional right to privacy was written therefore overturning Roe isn't unconstitutional" or "the commerce clause means no regulations for big business because we need to take it literally".


It's like applying fundie religion to the law.

[eallen]

4. Actually, abortion was around at the time, and legal in all colonies.

[jim3775]

5. Thats not what "they" say. n/t

[Just Me]

7. Loyalty to the neoconster-backed, BushCO empire for corporacrats.

Questions?

[bread_and_roses]

8. Just guessing but I think it has something to do with "original intent"

though how that can be reconciled with the abolition of slavery and female suffrage is beyond me...but then, I don't doubt they'd like to go back to those "good old days" of slavery, no votes for women, child labor, 12 hour work days, and "poor-houses" and orphanages....

But I am actually very cloudy on this - I also seem to recall reading something about sticking to the exact words of the original text - so I would welcome more educated explanation.

[Scoots]

14. I typed my response below before reading your post.

You're right on the money.

[Yupster]

21. A strict constructionist would not be against

changing the Constitution.

The way to change it is itself in the constitution. It's called the amendment process.

What the strict constructionalist would be against is changing the Constitution without amendment.

For instance on slavery, a strict constructionalist would think the Thireenth Amendment was the correct way to end slavery. Lincoln announcing the Emancipation Proclamation would likely not pass a strict constructionalist's muster.

Another example might be the Fourteenth Amendment, which was passed for a few reasons. It made freed slaves citizens of the states they reside in. It cancelled the Confederate war debt. It made it illegal for some Confederate leaders to hold federal office.

A strict constructionist would be against the Fourteenth Amendment granting rights to corporations because it was not written for that purpose. The same reasoning would lead a srict constructionist to be against the Fourteenth Amendment granting a woman the right to a legal abortion, as that had nothing to do with the amendment when it was written.

Hope that's a help.

[Darranar]

10. A right-wing libertarian, if one is sincere.

A right-wing authoritarian, if one is not.

[Ivan Sputnik]

11. It's someone who thinks we're still living in 1787

Before automobiles, electricity, computers, the internet(s), birth control and modern medicine.

[Scoots]

13. Much like the word liberal....

Much like the word "liberal" there is a political meaning and a real meaning. Essentially the real meaning is that they judge only with the actual literal words. No inferences, just the literal words.

The political meaning is "Right to Lifer."

[Lexingtonian]

15. It -is- shit.

Check the last question (i.e. very bottom) of this page. It has Rehnquist's definition.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20011101.html

[Mike Niendorff]

16. It means "political ally of the far right".

And they know it, too.


MDN

[Digit]

17. I didn't know there would be a quiz, but...

I was watching either CNN or MSNBC and one of the talking heads was remarking about a certain Justice on the Supreme Court who was a strict constructionist.
I am sorry I am so fuzzy on this because it was what they said which really got my attention.
This person goes back into old texts from the 1700's to try to see how they would have ruled back in those times.
"Those times" being a time rich white men were in power and when women were property and had the status of cattle. We all know from the history books about how they treated those who had little money (indentured servants) and people of other races who were enslaved.

Back in my days as a Realtor, I attended a settlement at an attorneys office in Fairfax. On his wall, was a Deed of Indentiture or something of that ilk. Making small talk before settlement, he laughingly remarked that those were the "good ol days"....I didn't think it at all funny and just glared back at him.
Thinking back, I think I had just met my first strict constructionist.

[Scoots]

19. From Black's Law Dictionary

From Black's Law Dictionary

Strict Constructionism: The doctrinal view of judicial construction holding that judges should interpret a document or statute according to its literal terms, without looking to other sources to ascertain the meaning.

From George W. Bush's diary

Strikt Construkshonism: Has nothing to do with the rule about wearing hardhats around dumptrucks and cranes!! It's a fancy term I use to keep the liberal academics (smarty-pants-people) occupied.

[Charlie Brown]

20. In my experience, the term is used to attack the EPA, Dept. of Education,

Medicare, the Small Business Administration, and anything else that provides a helping hand for people. Since none of these programs were mentioned by the founding fathers in the constitution, they're considered "unconstitutional" by wacko-righties.