- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,468
- Reaction score
- 1,575
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
It does limit the powers of the federal gov't very strictly, that is what strict constructionism is about. It then does though allow the states quite a broad scope but that is a matter for the states and their people and court systems, it is not to be solved by allowing the feds to loosely define and reinterpret the constitution and law and gain a lot of power at the expense of the states.My point is that "strict constructionists" has become a catch all term for social conservatives where if a right is not very explicitly stated in the constitution, you don't have it. Many of these "strict constructionists" have said as much. Well this is what you get, judges that don't recognize the right to privacy of an individual because its not absolutely, positively, explicitly stated in the constitution.
Personally, I prefer judges that see the constitution as a document that limits the powers of government, not a document that grants rights to individuals on U.S. soil.
Last edited: