So, to continue our Supreme Court discussion, we need to discuss two more terms: Strict and Loose Constructionists. On the Supreme Court today, we have two groups.
Strict Constructionists: Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas
Loose Constructionists: Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg.
Anthony Kennedy is somewhere in the middle, which makes him the crucial swing vote in most 5-4 decisions. Let me share with you my opinion of these terms.
Strict Constructionist --> One who believes that the Constitution was written “for all ages.” All cases/questionable laws brought before the Supreme Court should be viewed through the lens of the actual words of the Constitution, and nothing else.
Loose Constructionist --> One who believes that the Constitution is more archaic than modern, and that it needs to “evolve” as time progresses. All cases/questionable laws brought before the Supreme Court should be viewed through not only the lens of the Constitution, but through the lens of the justice’s personal view on how the Constitution has “evolved,” and even international law. Again, how do we know the correct way in which the Constitution should “evolve?” Well, I guess we’ll just have to trust the loose constructionist.
Personally, I believe that the philosophy of loose constructionism smacks the faces all of those founding fathers who created a dynamite system of government that has lasted for 2 centuries.
Now, some might say, “But the Founding Fathers were racist, and the Constitution they created was racist! It needs to evolve!”
Indeed. The founding fathers were very racist. And the Constitution was racist. And it needed to evolve. However, there’s a right way, and there’s a wrong way.
The Right Way: Constitutional Amendments. Our Constitution is changeable, through 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states. Over the years, our system has needed to evolve, and when necessary, it has.
The Wrong Way: Judicial Activism and Loose Constructionism. A justice feels very strongly about something, and so they twist the words of the Constitution, incorporate their own opinion, look at laws from outside of the United States, and make a decision that suits them.
This is simply dangerous. Here’s an example.
Now, here in Iowa, we do not have the death penalty on the books. However, more than 30 states do. Earlier this decade, Louisiana created a law that allowed the death penalty for child rapists. It was challenged in court, and with the 4 loose constructionists, plus Kennedy in the majority, the Supreme Court invalidated the law. Now, if they had looked at the U.S. Constitution as the
LONE basis of their opinion, that would be fine. However, they did NOT.
John Paul Stevens, Supreme Court liberal loose constructionist since 1975, said the following in this high profile decision.
“I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty (is unconstitutional).”Justice Scalia, in response, said,
“Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat.”Well said, Scalia. Let me repeat that Stevens' quote one more time, in case you missed it.
“I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty (is unconstitutional).”Your experience? You’re one man! And you’re not greater than the Constitution. In essence, a Supreme Court justice pretty much said, “Look. I know that we’re supposed to look at the Constitution as our only guide. However, I don’t care. I really don’t like the death penalty, and through my own experiences, I say it’s unconstitutional.”
Now, I don’t question Stevens’ intelligence, although some may. Gerald Ford called him a brilliant jurist. However, this opinion is simply absurd.
And that is loose constructionism for you: Absurd.
By the way, Obama is just itching to nominate a loose constructionist in the mold of John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court. We should try and stop him.
Posts
