You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>    >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Mon, 1st Feb '10 11:22 PM

STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM VS. THE LIVING CONSTITUTION

Anyone want to chime in here on how the constitution should be interpreted?

On the campaign trail in 2000, when speaking on his choices for new Supreme Court Justices, President George W. Bush promised to appoint "strict constructionists in the mold of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas".

While I understand that not many on the supreme court would self-identify as a strict constructionist, the term does seem to me useful in creating two ends of the spectrum, which seems useful as a starting point in discussion.

The often made claim that certain politicians disregard the constitution, I think would depend in part in how we interpret the constitution. Anyone have an opinion on this?

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Mon, 1st Feb '10 11:25 PM

Maybe "orginalism" would've been a better title for this thread rather than strict constructionalism.....whatever, hopefully y'all know what I mean. It was just intended to start discussion.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Mon, 1st Feb '10 11:49 PM

For those who want to brush up on what the different approaches might mean, here's a SEVEN minute video:

http://www.federalrepublic.net/2009/01/21/originalism-vs-living-constitution/

Though this guy seems more on the side of originalism imo.


Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus