Strict constructionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Strict constructionism is a philosophy of judicial interpretation and legal philosophy that limits judicial interpretation to the meanings of the actual words and phrases used in law, and not on other sources or inferences. Adherents look strictly at the text in question rather than relying either on legislative intent (as gleaned from contemporaneous commentaries or legislative debate) or on metaphysical ideas such as natural law. Two of the doctrine's most forceful proponents have been Justice Hugo Black and the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Contents
* 1 Rationale
* 2 Criticisms
* 3 Contrasts with originalism
* 4 See Also
* 5 Reference
Rationale
The underlying argument behind strict constructionism is that if a legislature truly wants to enact a particular law, they are capable of writing it down in plain English and passing it, and it is not the job of the judiciary to reconstruct what the legislature's intent could have been. Thus, for example, Justice Scalia refuses to look at committee reports that often accompany bills to the House or Senate floor.
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 5 -6 (1957), "[t]he United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source."
[edit]
Criticisms
* Some argue that the term is vague and difficult to apply. Noting that it largely came into prominence as part of Richard Nixon's presidential campaign, they point to a memo written to Nixon in which the term is explained:
A judge who is a "strict constructionist" in constitutional matters will generally not be favorably inclined toward claims of either criminal defendants or civil rights plaintiffs—the latter two groups having been the principal beneficiaries of the Supreme Court's "broad constructionist" reading of the Constitution. (William H. Rehnquist in a memo to Richard Nixon about Supreme Court nominees)
* Opponents of this view claim the term is merely a codeword for judges who tend to support conservative causes, and has no intrinsic meaning of its own.[1]
* Ronald Dworkin argues that strict constructionism is irreconcilable with the interpretive nature of law.
Contrasts with originalism
Although U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is often cited as a prominent advocate of strict constructionism, Scalia demurs, averring that "the text should be interpreted neither strictly nor sloppily, but reasonably"; a more accurate description of the views held by Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas, is originalist. Scalia differentiates the two by pointing out that "he uses a cane" means "he walks with a cane", not what a strict use of the words might suggest.
See Also
* Originalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism