Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Few judges self-identify as strict constructionists, due to the narrow meaning of the term. Antonin Scalia, the justice most identified with the term, once wrote: "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be," calling the philosophy "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute." Scalia summarized ...
The territory acquired from the Louisiana Purchase, superimposed on a map of the contiguous United States.. Jefferson positioned himself as a strict constructionist regarding the United States Constitution, a view which argued for a strict, exact-word interpretation of the law; [15] this position, however, meant that purchasing Louisiana from France (as Jefferson did) would be potentially ...
The rule of lenity, also called the rule of strict construction, is a principle in criminal law that requires a court to interpret an ambiguous or unclear criminal statute in the way that is most favorable to the defendant.
At first, Constructivism "promoted the synthesis of painting, sculpture and architecture in the construction of a better environment for a new society. In later years, although the work still conformed to formal constructivist characteristic, this idealism was eroded and the primary focus became the internal logic of the art object, rather than any overt social or utilitarian function."
Constructionism may refer to Constructionism (learning theory), an educational philosophy developed by Seymour Papert; Social constructionism, a theory of how social phenomena or objects of consciousness develop in social contexts; Strict constructionism, a conservative type of legal or constitutional interpretation
Judicial interpretation is the way in which the judiciary construes the law, particularly constitutional documents, legislation and frequently used vocabulary.This is an important issue in some common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Canada, because the supreme courts of those nations can overturn laws made by their legislatures via a process called judicial review.
The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. Opponents often argue that the Constitution should be changed by an amendment process because allowing judges to change the Constitution's meaning undermines democracy.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, a frequent critic of conservative originalism, argues that some aspects of the constitution were intentionally broad and vague to allow for future generations to interpret them along with the times. [40] Michael Waldman argues that originalism is a new concept, and not one espoused by the founders. [41]