0
A broad interpretation of the Constitution would be one that allows a considerable amount of flexibility. A narrow interpretation would tend to interpret the laws in the most literal sense. Anti-Federalists like Thomas Jefferson favored a strict interpretation, and were against loose interpretation because it meant stepping outside the boundaries, and assuming more power than had been granted. The Federalists, on the other hand, favored a more ambiguous interpretation that would allow to the government to assume additional power when needed.
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Lao
Beau
Taiga
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What was the debate between the Loose Vs Strict Constructionist?
The strict constructionists wants to follow the Constitution down to the letter, in accordance with what the founding meant the terms to mean. The loose constructionists want to incorporate changes to society into the interpretation of the Constitution.
What was strict vs loose construction of constitution?
Strict construction is a legal philosophy of judicial interpretation in which the original intent of the constitution holds that the Constitution means exactly what it says, and thus, is not open to interpretation or inference. This legal philosophy is sometimes called "judicial conservatism." In addition, strict constructionalism stemmed from Thomas Jefferson and other anti-federalists, who believed that since the United States government's powers are derived from the consent of the governed then the people or the States should restrict the Supreme Court's power. In other words, a judge should strictly look at the constitution and if it does not answer the problem at hand, then it should be up to the states to decide. Loose construction is based on the idea that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen what the world would be like in the 21st Century, and that the Constitution must thus be interpreted in light of historic and societal change. Loose constructionism is sometimes called "judicial liberalism."
What did the US Supreme Court rule in Furman v Georgia?
In Furman vs. Georgia the court ruled that all existing death penalty laws violated the constitution.
What provisions in the US Constitution make it a flexible documentation?
The provision that provides flexibility to the U.S.Constitution is Article 5, which established procedures for proposing and ratifying amendments to the Constitution. Article 3 established the Supreme Court and the power of judicial review. It does not grant the Court the power to interpret the Constitution. However, in the 1803 case Marbury vs. Madison the Supreme Court determined that it had the right to interpret the Constitution, thus lending flexibility to the Constitution. -- Contributed by Ray Kovach, Chicago, IL
US Constitution vs other constitutions?
This topic is the subject of more than several books and encyclopedia-length articles and is far too lengthy to be addressed or handled on this venue.
