"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This is the widely debated 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. As we discussed in AS class, this sentence can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Not quite sure I have the political stature to fully debate this interpretation yet, but it helps to get some information about why/how this amendment is so controversial.
After our class discussion , I found myself very interested in this topic. I later researched more about Supreme Court Cases and discovered that some decisions in past court cases have been made due to strict following of the Constitution; others seemed to have been resolved using a more modern-day loose and interpretive style of the document. I came upon two terms in my research that clearly define these two styles of interpreting the Constitution: Strict constructionism and loose constructionism.
Strict constructionists, or judicial fundamentalists, believe that people must follow every word of the Constitution without questioning it and do exactly as it says. I learned that Thomas Jefferson was a strict constructionist during his time.
Loose constructionists believe that people should have a liberal interpretation of the Constitution and can act in certain ways as long as the Constitution does not directly forbid it. Another name for loose constructionist is judicial activist. Alexander Hamilton was an example of an early loose constructionist.
I got the two terms down, but then came across probably the most important part that connects these two terms, as well as making an overall connection to our AS class. People choose to be a loose or strict constructionist often based on how they believe our forefathers envisioned the Constitution's roll in the future.
Many strict constructionists believe that when our forefathers created the Constitution, they intended for the document to be followed word for word forever. Present day strict constructionists show pragmatism as they believe that men like Thomas Jefferson created a realistic and straightforward lawful document that should be followed as is.
Loose constructionists think that the forefathers created the Constitution with the intention that it should be left open for change and adjustment in the future. Loose constructionists today practice a type of idealism, as they believe that others like Alexander Hamilton wrote the Constitution as a document that had some leeway to it for future change.
So concerned parents, when your child defies you by using the, "But, you never said I couldn't do this!" line....maybe he/she is just a young and ambitious judicial activist??
This is the widely debated 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. As we discussed in AS class, this sentence can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Not quite sure I have the political stature to fully debate this interpretation yet, but it helps to get some information about why/how this amendment is so controversial.
After our class discussion , I found myself very interested in this topic. I later researched more about Supreme Court Cases and discovered that some decisions in past court cases have been made due to strict following of the Constitution; others seemed to have been resolved using a more modern-day loose and interpretive style of the document. I came upon two terms in my research that clearly define these two styles of interpreting the Constitution: Strict constructionism and loose constructionism.
Strict constructionists, or judicial fundamentalists, believe that people must follow every word of the Constitution without questioning it and do exactly as it says. I learned that Thomas Jefferson was a strict constructionist during his time.
Loose constructionists believe that people should have a liberal interpretation of the Constitution and can act in certain ways as long as the Constitution does not directly forbid it. Another name for loose constructionist is judicial activist. Alexander Hamilton was an example of an early loose constructionist.
I got the two terms down, but then came across probably the most important part that connects these two terms, as well as making an overall connection to our AS class. People choose to be a loose or strict constructionist often based on how they believe our forefathers envisioned the Constitution's roll in the future.
Many strict constructionists believe that when our forefathers created the Constitution, they intended for the document to be followed word for word forever. Present day strict constructionists show pragmatism as they believe that men like Thomas Jefferson created a realistic and straightforward lawful document that should be followed as is.
Loose constructionists think that the forefathers created the Constitution with the intention that it should be left open for change and adjustment in the future. Loose constructionists today practice a type of idealism, as they believe that others like Alexander Hamilton wrote the Constitution as a document that had some leeway to it for future change.
So concerned parents, when your child defies you by using the, "But, you never said I couldn't do this!" line....maybe he/she is just a young and ambitious judicial activist??
1 comment:
Great post Jonny!! These two styles of interpreting the Constitution are really interesting and helpful in understanding what grounds those in controversy to the 2nd amendment justify their opposing claims with. This reminds me of what Mrs. Logan was talking about a few weeks ago in class, about how winning a debate comes down to how one frames their question. By claiming that Constitution was meant to be interpreted one way over the other, either as a strict constructionalist or as a judicial fundamentalist, then one adds a lot of credibility to their argument for their viewpoint seems to be the only "right" one.
Post a Comment