0
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Jordan
Rene
BlakeAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
An advocate of judicial restraint would support a narrow interpretation or a broad interpretation?
it would be narrow because they only veto un constitutional laws
What is Broad vs Narrow's interpretation of the Constitution?
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.
Do you think an advocate of judicial restraint would support a narrow interpretation of the constitution or a broad interpretation?
An advocate of judicial restrain would support a narrow interpretation of the Constitution, one that adhered closely to the language of the document and his or her belief about the Framers' original intent. Interpretive ideologies such as textualism, "strict constructionism," and originalism are most often associated with judicial restraint. Contextualism, which attempts to infer intent from content, may also result in judicial restraint; however, the degree of subjectivity implicit in this method can also lend itself to judicial activism.
Did Gibbons v Ogden involve a narrow or broad interpretation of the US Constitution?
The Supreme Court used a broad interpretation of the Constitution when reaching its decision in Gibbons v. Ogden,(1824). A broad interpretation creates a precedent that is applicable to many cases, as opposed to a narrow interpretation, which may address only the instant case or a small range of cases.In Gibbons, Chief Justice Marshall held Congress had sole authority to regulate commerce between the states, and asserted the supremacy of federal law over state law when the two are in conflict (per the Article VI Supremacy Clause).Case Citation:Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)
What is a strict interpretation?
In a strict interpretation, everything is taken literally and nothing is implied or assumed.
