Strict Vs. Loose interpretation of the Constitution?

Question

I am arguing in favor of a LOOSE interpretation of the constitution and I need an argument on why loose is better than strict interpretation of the constitution. Also my argument needs to pertain to the times in POST REVOLUTIONARY AMERICA not current 2006 times. so i cant use arguments such as "abortion gay marriage and controversial topics" I need arguments such as Thomas Jefferson buying the Louisiana Purchase even though the Constitution didn't explicitly allow it.

Answer 1

The constitution was written by fallible human beings, just like you & me. The founding fathers realized this and therefore left many things open to interpretation. It is a document that was to be used as a guideline to appropriate behavior and not a specific word for word statement. The constitution may not explicitly state it is okay but does not explicitly state it is not okay either. The desire of the authors of the constitution to have it open to interpretation and growth is further witnessed by the fact that they allowed for amendments to meet the needs of future generations.

Oh, an FYI to the above, read the second amendment. It does not in anyway say individuals have a right to bear arms. It says 'the state' has a right to bear arms, and since states did not have armies in those days this meant states could arm its citizens and call on those citizens to fight and defend the state when needed. It also reads that 'the federal shall not prohibit states from their right to bear arms', nothing about states de-arming themselves.

Answer 2

Look for info on James Madison,Doctrine of Manifest Destiny,
and the American Whig Party. The Federalist Papers should also be helpful. good luck!

Answer 3

A non-american born man gets elected as president. 2008

Answer 4

when i hear people say that the right to bear arms is an outdated part of the constitution it gravely concerns me..