Strict Constructionists Argue That the Constitution in Construction in the USA

Strict constructionism represents a foundational philosophy in American constitutional interpretation, advocating for a narrow, literal reading of the Constitution’s text. This approach emphasizes that the federal government possesses only those powers explicitly granted by the Constitution, with all other powers reserved to the states or the people.

Core Principles of Strict Constructionism

Strict constructionists adhere to several key principles:

• Limited Government: They believe in a federal government with powers that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution, arguing that any powers not explicitly granted are reserved for the states or the people.
• Original Intent: Interpreting the Constitution based on the intent of the Founding Fathers, as expressed in the text and historical context of the document.
• Plain Meaning: Giving words and phrases in the Constitution their plain and ordinary meaning, without adding or subtracting from their intent.
• Textualism: Focusing on the literal text of the Constitution and prioritizing its language over external sources.
• Judicial Restraint: Believing that judges should exercise restraint in interpreting laws and avoid creating new doctrines based on personal preferences.

Historical Foundations and Early Debates

The roots of strict constructionism can be traced back to the early years of the United States. The debate between Thomas Jefferson, a proponent of strict constructionism, and Alexander Hamilton, who favored a more expansive interpretation of the Constitution, exemplifies this foundational conflict. Jefferson argued that the federal government should only exercise powers explicitly granted by the Constitution, while Hamilton contended that the “necessary and proper” clause allowed for implied powers to carry out the government’s duties.

This ideological clash led to significant policy decisions, including the establishment of the First Bank of the United States. Jefferson opposed the bank, viewing it as unconstitutional, while Hamilton supported it, arguing that it was necessary to stabilize and improve the nation’s credit. The eventual creation of the bank marked a pivotal moment in the interpretation of federal power.

Judicial Precedents Reflecting Strict Constructionism

Several landmark Supreme Court cases have reflected the principles of strict constructionism:

• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): The Court upheld the constitutionality of the national bank, interpreting the “necessary and proper” clause broadly to allow for implied powers. This decision marked a significant departure from strict constructionist principles.
• Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): The Court ruled that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. This decision was based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution’s text, reflecting the prevailing views of the time.
• United States v. Lopez (1995): The Court struck down a federal law banning guns in school zones, ruling that it exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. This decision marked a return to strict constructionist principles, limiting the scope of federal power.

Strict Constructionism in Modern Context

In contemporary legal and political discourse, strict constructionism continues to influence debates over constitutional interpretation:

• Judicial Philosophy: Justices who adhere to strict constructionism argue that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the Constitution as it is written, not to create new rights or policies. This philosophy emphasizes the importance of judicial restraint and the separation of powers.
• Legislative Action: Strict constructionists advocate for changes to the Constitution to occur through the formal amendment process, as outlined in Article V, rather than through judicial reinterpretation. This approach ensures that alterations to the Constitution reflect the will of the people and the states.
• Controversial Decisions: Critics of strict constructionism argue that it can lead to rigid interpretations that fail to adapt to contemporary societal needs. For instance, decisions like Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which legalized same-sex marriage, were based on broader interpretations of constitutional principles, contrasting with strict constructionist views.

Conclusion

Strict constructionism remains a significant and influential philosophy in American constitutional interpretation. By advocating for a narrow, literal reading of the Constitution, strict constructionists seek to preserve the original intent of the Founding Fathers and maintain a limited federal government. While this approach has faced criticism for its rigidity, it continues to play a crucial role in shaping legal and political debates in the United States.

End of Article