Strict or loose interpretation of the US Constitution?

Question

I'd like to hear opinions on which you personally prefer, would be better for the country, or which the framers truly intended. Please support your opinions.

In response to John B's 'how do you support an opinion' I say that any opinion not based on some sort of relevent logic or fact is merely a person'spreconception, it is an uneducated opinion. Unfortunately, too many people in this country, and around the world, hold on to their unsupported opinions as if they were holy writ and these people can not be swayed by facts nor logic. Personally, I think this sort of ignorance is quite sad.

For this question I have asked, however, I want serious, informed, educated opinions by people who have done their homework so to speak. No answer is right or wrong necessarily, and I believe there are arguments that support both views. I am simply interested in seeing what this community thinks about the subject, and why they think the way they do.

Answer 1

Strict.

Strict interpretation means that the Constitution must explicitly grant a power or privilege in order for the action to be legal. Loose interpretation means that government can act relatively freely as long as the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit an action.

The problem with a loose interpretation is that it doesn't provide any safeguards against government intrusion on our liberty. What limits would there be? Our Constitution is really a brilliant document - it's small, compact, and written in very plain language, unlike our legal code, making its contents accessible to anyone who can read. That's intentional. A loose interpretation completely negates that concept.

I have to ask what the point of having a written constitution is at all if we interpret its words loosely. After all, isn't a written constitution just a contract - a pact between the government and its citizens? Contracts must be explicit, clear, and concise as to ensure all interested parties' rights and requests are reflected accurately. The Constitution should be treated in the same way. The government's powers should be limited to what's in the pact. Nothing more and nothing less.

The great aspect of the Constitution, though, is that it's not rigid and inflexible. Changes can be made through (an albeit) difficult process, which allows both a strict interpretation and change.

Answer 2

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/uLumb

You can pick any 5 issues and find both loose and strict interpretations. The second amendment, the right to bear arms, certainly never intended for people to have armor-piercing bullets. The first amendment grants us free speech, but we can't slander people or incite riots. That's why we have a Supreme Court. They are mandated by the constitution to INTERPRET the constitution, because the great men who wrote it knew that not every single thing could be anticipated.

Answer 3

Strict Construction Definition

Answer 4

I concur with strict interpretation for the same reasons. The Framers of the Constitution couldn't forsee everything, but if we leave it to a loose interpretation then Government could take away our basic freedoms like they did with the Patriot Act.

Answer 5

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Strict or loose interpretation of the US Constitution?
I'd like to hear opinions on which you personally prefer, would be better for the country, or which the framers truly intended. Please support your opinions.

Answer 6

Strict Constructionist

Answer 7

Strict or loose interpertation, it grants the governmernt a a strong hand either way.My personal opinion though it should be loosely interperted, that way in certain situations, with out of ordinary circumstances, doesn't have the same strict stringent rules as the others.

Answer 8

As pertains to the constitution, I am a strict constructionist. How does one support an opinion? Isn't it an opinion?

Answer 9

an evolving constitution, accurately interpreted....the issue of "activist judges" is simply that people think this or that judge is interpreting the law incorrectly.....but to that judge, it IS correct. Some people think the second amendment gives the right to keep and bare arms to individuals....I think it only gives that right to States to raise militias against the power of the Federal gov't.

Answer 10

Go by what the framers intended. If you want to change the document, then do it legally, with a proper amendment, and not with the twisted logic of activist judges and leftist political science professers.