What would you like to do?
A strict interpretation of the Constitution states that the government of the United States holds only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution. A loose interpretation of the Constitution posits that the government of the United States hold all powers that are not specifically denied to it by the Constitution.
Was this answer useful?
Thanks for the feedback!
Loose construction-means that the federal government can take reasonable actions that the constitution does not specifically forbid Strict construction- people who favor… strict constitution think that that federal government should do only what the constitution specifically says it can do The Loose Construction Theory is when federalists interpret the Constitution into things that are in favor of a stronger national government. There are limitations involved.
To answer your question, let me use the American Constitution as an example. Thomas Jefferson believed in a strict construction of the Constitution; that means, he believed… people should follow exactly what was stated and allowed in the document. Anything not given to the federal government in the Constitution would be given to the states and the people. On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton believed in a loose construction of the Constitution; that means, he thought you could take whatever action you wanted, as long as the document did not specifically say you couldn't do it. So, a strict constructionist would feel the need to follow the specific instructions and rules of something, while a loose constructionist would feel it was acceptable to find a loophole, or do something not directly forbidden.
The federal government has only the power to do exactly as the Constitution says.
A strict interpreter must change every word from the speakers language to the listeners language. A loose interpreter has more liberty to relay the message in the most eff…icient way without concern of every word.
.Loose construction: if the constitution said nothing about it we can do it. Strict construction: if the constitution said nothing about it we cant do anything about it.
John Marshall is considered to have been a loose constructionist, rather than a strict constructionist. Marshall was the 4th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
It means that the federal government has only the power to do exactly as the Constution says. source: wikianswers on another page!
Well, it's kind of self-explanitory. It's the opposite of loose interpretration. Strict interpretation of the Constitution is when you do only as much as the Consti…tion allows you to do. Anything that is not mentioned in the Constitution is thought to be Unconstitutional. For example, When Jefferson ran for president against Adams, he was an advocat of strict interpretation of the constituion. He didn't like the idea of a national bank because it wasn't mentioned in the constitution.
What is the Between Loose Interpretation of the constitution and Strict Interpretation of the Constitution?
It perhaps has been said that between loose interpretation and strict interpretation of the Constitution there is the practical matter of applying the Constitution to the bu…siness of government. The Constitution of the United States of America is the Supreme Law of that land and guides that nation in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. In order to form a more perfect union the people, through the Constitution, granted limited and temporary power to certain government officials so that they might establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare. But what does it mean to promote the general welfare? How should our elected officials ensure domestic tranquility? How much power should the people grant military leaders in order to provide for a common defense? Exactly how does a government establish justice? These are the goals the people, through constitutional mandate have given their elected officials. How those government officials accomplish or attempt to accomplish those goals depends largely on how they interpret the Constitution. There are those who take a liberal view of the Constitution and others who take a conservative view of the same document and then there is everybody in between. A Liberal will take a loose interpretation of the Constitution as his strategy for accomplishing the necessary goals while a Conservative will adhere strictly to the text to guide them in what must be done. Those in between are not really using the Constitution as their guide. One can not be conservative on some issues and liberal on others without running into logical fallacies. This sort of political declaration only confuses the meaning of liberal and conservative. In the American political landscape if it is not the Constitution that is being conserved then exactly what is being conserved? It is not necessary for a liberal to know they are taking a liberal view of the Constitution in order to be a Liberal, but a Conservative must know that it is the original intent of the Constitution that they are conserving or they become nothing more than just another progressive movement and before you know it the main stream media starts inventing terms like "neo-conservative" and "moderate conservative" or "far right conservative" or even more confusing "left leaning conservative." They all just seem to be descriptions of people in between. There is no better way to illustrate the difference between a liberal and conservative view of the Constitution than by using the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights as an example. The Second Amendment states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A liberal or loose interpretation will place its focus on what is meant by "well regulated militia" and a conservative or strict interpretation will place its focus on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Of the many arguments made about the Second Amendment the serious ones come down to an interpretation that means that the people have a right to bear arms if they belong to a well regulated militia or an interpretation that means that in order for the people to keep and maintain well regulated militias the people must have the right to keep and bear their own arms. The difference between these two interpretations are radical and extreme. The Conservative, being fundamentally bound by the text which they hope to conserve must concede that "a well regulated militia" certainly can imply some sort of government regulation and such an interpretation should not be construed as a loose interpretation of the text. The conservative will also point out that the text does not imply that the people have a right to keep and bear arms but unequivocally states it and expressly forbids the government from infringing that right. A Liberal will counter that in order for a government to effectively regulate militias they must be able to regulate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The conservative will claim that this is an infringement upon that right. The Liberal will counter that it is not the right itself that is being regulated but the exercise of that right that is being regulated and then the Conservative will challenge the Liberal to show where in the Constitution that the power to regulate the exercise of freedom was granted to government officials and the debate will continue going back and forth, round and round leaving everyone in between bored and agitated while gradual apathy creeps into their politics and so it remains that it is Liberals and Conservatives who stay the course while everyone in between follows.
It was based on a loose interpretation of the Constitution because he wasn't really allowed to by the land, and he had to justify his actions by his hopes for the nation
A loose constructionist meant that unless the constitution directly prohibited an act, it could be done. Strict constructionists believed that constitution had to directly app…rove an act. if it wasn't in the constitution it was thought to be unconstitutional and wong
Strict Constructionists believe a narrow, strict and literal interpretation of the express language of the Constitution is proper. This judicial philosophy requires a cour…t to apply the exact written text of the law or regulation to the issue before the court. Otherwise known as "plain meaning," the court must apply the statute as written; there must be no interpretation or drawing inferences. The problem with the Strict Construction philosophy is that its adherents refuse to address ambiguity in language, or that the meaning of words can change over the years. And, if the traditional meaning was applied by a court, would current citizens understand the court's decision. Example: Take the word "appeasement." Prior to WWII, appeasement was another word for "negotiation." Today, it means cowardly yielding to a bulling opponent. If "appeasement" was written into the Constitution or statute, if a Strict Constructionist used the pre-WWII interpretation of the word, would contemporary readers understand the court's intent? Loose Constructionists believe the opposite; the literal language of the Constitution or statutes must be interpreted in light of contemporary society, social conduct and common understanding of language. As Justice Marshall wrote in McCulloch, "Sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (S.Ct. 1819-03-06) Complicating this philosophical debate is that each side has never adhered strictly to their own principles. Jefferson, the hero of Strict Constructionists, often took a Loose Constructionist approach while President. Hamilton, hero to the Loose Constructionists, often argued for strict application of the Constitution in certain situations. Last, do not confuse Strict Construction with Originalism. Originalism (the term came into usage in the 1980's) is a philosophy based on the principle that courts are merely to uphold the law, not interpret, "create" or amend laws. The latter powers are, under Originalism, reserved strictly for the legislative branch.
Was Jeffersons purchase of the Louisiana based on a strict or loose interpretation of the constitution?
a loose interpretation
Strict construction meant that those interpreting it thought that that the government should only have powers that were expressly stated in the constitution. Like, it shou…ldn't stretch the limits or try to do things that the constitution didn't say specifically were ok to do.