Strict or Broad interpretation of the Constitution?

[Syterion]

Well if you've ever taken a U.S. History course, you may know already that this is merely an attempt to get out of more work. But it is still an interesting topic to discuss.

Strict interpretation, is supposed to protect the liberties of the citizens. It does this by limiting the government's power, so that the government cannot infringe on others' liberties. The burden of proof belongs to the government; they must prove the Constitution has the right to infringe on the liberties of the citizen instead of the citizen proving he/she deserves this liberty.

Broad interpretation I am not as familiar with, so I hope some of you can help me out here. I am told many broad interpretationists believe that the strict interpretation does not protect the liberties of the people because not all human rights are defined and by their view of strict interpretation, this means that the other rights not defined can be infrnged on by the government. This is made false by a simple reading of the 9th Amendment. This is of course a very simple and not in depth look at both views, so I hope for some detailed discussion.

Thoughts?

 

[Atlas14]

I tend to favor strict interpretation of the Constitution, but like most Americans, if the broad interpretation benefits me, then Im all for it in that particular circumstance. It seems reasonable to accept that the founding fathers/writers of the Constitution knew what they were talking about, and tried to prevent blunders from being repeated in the future. I see a too-powerful govt. as very dangerous, and so the strict interpretation limits this fed. govt. power, as you said. In many cases throughout history, the broad interpretation has been the weapon used by those who agree with the minority opinion.

 

[Elrohir]

Strict interpetation. If you can't get a large enough percentage of the American people to agree with you to pass your laws legally I don't want you "finding" them in the Constitution. (Like the "right" to an abortion)

 

[SeleucusNicator]

I see we have a budding Scalia here at CFC.

Anyway, behold as I present a "strict interpretation" argument in favor of the broad interpretation.

I quote from the Constitution:

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

(skipping a few enumerated powers)

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

In essense, as long as something either improves the security of the United States or promotes its general welfare (that is, its general well-being), it is constitutional.

So, things like National Banks, government-built roads, etc. that strict interpreters sometimes find unconstitutional, are in fact perfectly so.

 

[pboily]

Strict interpretation. Anything that swings the US's political pendulum to the right is best for Canada, as it provides us with a blanket: no matter how much me suck in the eyes of the world, we'll never be the worst Anglo-Saxon North American nation.

Seriously, though, the US would be a pretty lame place without const. ammendments (even the right to bare arms, I guess).

 

[Atlas14]

So, things like National Banks, government-built roads, etc. that strict interpreters sometimes find unconstitutional, are in fact perfectly so.

But wouldn't national banks be counter-productive, and not promoting the general welfare of the nation because they become too powerful and in many cases less efficient than private banks?

 

[Irish Caesar]

I'm in favor of a strict interpretation. A very strict one.

The elastic clause has been abused over time, and I'm sure the Framers had no intention of the Federal government becoming as powerful and all-encompassing as it now is. Personally, I think there is a huge difference between the "general Welfare" and simply "Welfare." I think de Tocqueville would agree.

As for the broad interpretation, I can't generally agree with expanding the power of the government based on the "necessary and proper" clause too often...that was a move showing the foresight of the Framers...they knew that situations would come up in the future that might merit a stronger Congress. Note that the President and the Supreme Court do not have this "necessary and proper" clause and so should not be legislating at all.

 

[IglooDame]

Strict interpretation for me, thanks.

My understanding of the broad interpretation argument is that the Constitution should be a "living document" as far as interpreting it, and we should not restrict ourselves to things that men 200 years ago put in writing because some of the problems today they could not possibly have foreseen.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Strict interpetation. If you can't get a large enough percentage of the American people to agree with you to pass your laws legally I don't want you "finding" them in the Constitution. (Like the "right" to an abortion)

That is my opinion as well.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

It really depends on the part of the Constitution that you are referring to.

 

[joycem10]

I see we have a budding Scalia here at CFC.

Anyway, behold as I present a "strict interpretation" argument in favor of the broad interpretation.

I quote from the Constitution:


In essence, as long as something either improves the security of the United States or promotes its general welfare (that is, its general well-being), it is constitutional.

So, things like National Banks, government-built roads, etc. that strict interpreters sometimes find unconstitutional, are in fact perfectly so.

Spoken like a true federalist. Just remember the tenth amendment, although the way its been eviscerated since the 19th century...

I lean towards constructionism but I think that there are areas, like bioethics and surveillance tech, that are beyond the possible scope of the framers range of experience. Thats why I tend to favor the implied right of privacy.

 

[Mark1031]

The most important issue in the law is precedent. The current legal system is not built only on the words of 200 years ago but on the hundreds of decisions relating to those words and to other decisions. It is simply ridiculous to think that every new question can be addressed by looking at a few words in the constitution. Just a few points that some people may not realize about constitutional law. First of all the whole notion that the Supreme Court can review and invalidate laws based on the constitution is based on a precedent Marbury v. Madison (1808), not by strict interpretation of the constitutional text. Second the Bill of Rights does not apply to laws enacted by the states Barron v. Baltimore (1833). That is, the state of Utah could enact Mormonism as the state religion and it would not be unconstitutional. Now you'll say that that can never happen, well Barron v. Baltimore is still valid law. The reason this would be ruled unconstitutional is because of incorporation of the Bill of Rights as restrictions on the states via the fourteenth amendment. Here's the relevant text from the fourteenth amendment: " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Pretty vague and nowhere does it say this is intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights as restrictions upon states, a strict constructionist would therefore not prohibit Utah from making Mormonism the state religion. In fact it is precedents over many many years that specifically incorporate each of the Bill of Rights clauses as restrictions upon states. Strict constructionism is simply a political code phrase meaning I want the court to behave more in line with a conservative ideology.

 

[Syterion]

My understanding of the broad interpretation argument is that the Constitution should be a "living document" as far as interpreting it, and we should not restrict ourselves to things that men 200 years ago put in writing because some of the problems today they could not possibly have foreseen.

Can anybody elaborate for the sake of discussion?

And another reason why many support strict constructionism is to keep the branches of government balanced. I know that legislating through the bench started with Marbury vs. Madison, but I fail to see how it is fair for laws to be repealed by judges that were appointed, when the laws were enacted by elected legislators. So in this way does broad interpretation take away power from the people.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Marbury v. Madison (1801) wasn't legislating from the bench, really. It was enforcing the fact that government officials were using powers that they had not been granted by the Constitution.

Laws can be repealed by judges when the laws are not themselves legal according to the Constitution. If a law is to be passed that is contrary to Constitutional law, there is a special procedure for amending the Constitution (outlined in Article 5) so that a simple majority cannot change it. However, the Court can only do this when a case is brought to it; it can't spontaneously repeal laws.

 

[eyrei]

Strict interpetation. If you can't get a large enough percentage of the American people to agree with you to pass your laws legally I don't want you "finding" them in the Constitution. (Like the "right" to an abortion)

Funny that the Rhenquist court overturned more legally passed legislation than most.

Strict interpretation means nothing anymore except that it agrees with what conservatives want, and voting against Roe vs. Wade.

 

[Mark1031]

Can anybody elaborate for the sake of discussion?

And another reason why many support strict constructionism is to keep the branches of government balanced. I know that legislating through the bench started with Marbury vs. Madison, but I fail to see how it is fair for laws to be repealed by judges that were appointed, when the laws were enacted by elected legislators. So in this way does broad interpretation take away power from the people.

Sorry but you are sprouting nonsense conservative talking points. First of all if legislating from the bench is overturning laws that were passed by Congress then it is the right wingers on the bench right now Scalia Thomas Kennedy that are by far the worst offenders. This is documented, Google it. So apparently we don't want to appoint more justices like this. This legislating from the bench is all just so much political BS. Now if you are real strict constructionist first of all nobody would give a crap about the Supreme Court because they wouldn't have any power. And even if you granted them that power there are so many things that we take for granted because they have been set down by 200 years of evolving legal precedents that we would need a new constitutional convention or a Civil War to set things straight. Again the notion of strict construction is simply foolishness, it is a codeword for conservative. As far as taking away power from the people I believe you have that completely wrong. The decisions that most people rail against are really decisions that protect individual people against the tyranny of the majority as expressed through the government. Right to privacy, search and seizure, free speech, these are individual rights that majorities in certain states would love to take away from certain people. The Supreme Court and our general social contract prevents this. Finally, the majority expresses its will quite readily through the appointment of judges by elected politicians, it's not like they simply walk in and claim these positions the whole thing is highly politicized. Putting these individuals on the court for life simply protects them from the changing demands of the majority and allows them to judge based on the law and their own interpretation of it. It provides a certain stability to the country and a protection against the tyranny of the fickle and easily manipulated majority.

 

[Elrohir]

Funny that the Rhenquist court overturned more legally passed legislation than most.

Strict interpretation means nothing anymore except that it agrees with what conservatives want, and voting against Roe vs. Wade.

Considering the country is bigger, and more laws are being passed, I don't find that suprising. Besides, while the Chief Justice was conservative, the Court on the whole was liberal.

Strict interpetation means exactly that, interpeting strictly based on what the Constitution actually says, not what you want it to say.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Strict interpretation was designed to protect states rights. I don't think anyone interprets the constitution as strict as people like Jefferson believe it was intended. If it was, drug laws wouldn't exist, there would be no income tax, probably many other things I can't think of off the top of my head.

The idea of a loose interpretation came about by Alexander Hamilton, who basically invisioned a United States ruled by a small propertied elite that was mostly business people and merchants. But if it weren't for his actions, the United States wouldn't be as strong as it is today.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I don't think anyone interprets the constitution as strict as people like Jefferson believe it was intended. If it was, ... there would be no income tax

The income tax was added to the Constitution by the passage of the 16th Amendment. It's not a strict constructionist issue; the income tax is part of the Constitution and not just average legislation.

 

[Kayak]

Considering the country is bigger, and more laws are being passed, I don't find that suprising. Besides, while the Chief Justice was conservative, the Court on the whole was liberal.

Strict interpetation means exactly that, interpeting strictly based on what the Constitution actually says, not what you want it to say.

Bigger than when? Do we have more Senators and Representatives that I wasn't aware of? Are you sure more laws are passed now as opposed to 30 years ago? How about laws struck down a a pecentage of the cases that the court heard?

As to your second point; Interpetation is interpretation. Everyone sees what they have a predisposed inclination to see. Word meaning and usage changes over time. Ideas and morality changes over time.