What is the difference in loose and strict constitution?
.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.
3 people found this useful
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 doThe Loose C…onstruction Theory is when federalists interpret theConstitution into things that are in favor of a stronger nationalgovernment. There are limitations involved. (MORE)
Yes he did. Hamilton supported a looser interpretation of the Constitution so that the central government could be strengthened at the expense of the state's rights. He believe that the government should be allowed to use the implied powers and the elastic clause from the Constitution to his adva…ntage. (MORE)
It's your interpretation of the constitution. The philosophy that allows narrow constitutional interpretation is called strict construction and the philosophy of broad constitutional interpretation is called loose construction. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison favored the strict constructions, and… Alexander Hamilton favored the loose construction. (MORE)
The federal government has only the power to do exactly as the Constitution says. In George Washington's Presidency Alexander Hamilton who believed in loose construction believed that because the Constitution did not say that creating a national bank was illegal, then it could be done. Thomas Jeffer…son a believer of a strict interpretation believed that if it was not said in the Constitution that the Federal Government could make a National Bank then it is not allowed. The idea of strict and loose interpretation is fought about even to this day. (MORE)
Almost every law that comes under strict scrutiny has been reversed, and almost every law that has come under rational scrutiny has been upheld. The different levels of scrutiny define the different standards the state law must pass. For a law to pass strict scrutiny, it must be narrowly tailored an…d least restrictive and the state must have a compelling state interest for its enactment. For a law to pass rational scrutiny, it must be rational (the law can be over-inclusive and under-inclusive) and the state has to show that it was accomplished legally. The state only has to show that the reason for its enactment is legitimate. The burden of proof also shifts from the defendant in rational scrutiny to the state in strict scrutiny. (MORE)
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 th…e 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. (MORE)
A constitution is like a mission statement. It is a general outlineof the ideals set forth by a government.
The Constitution allows everything, unless it specifically forbids it. A loose view of the constitution simply means that one has a more liberal view of the rules and regulations present in the document. A strict view would imply that one views the constitution with a conservative approach, believ…ing that the rules should be interpreted literally. Jefferson believed in a strict view of the constitution while he was an advisor. When he became president, his view changed; He supported a more loose view of the document in accordance with his policies. Hamilton, on the other hand, always supported a loose view of the living document. (MORE)
The federal government has only the power to do exactly as the Constitution says. .
They didn't want someone coming in and making interpretations. Ifsomeone started doing that, then soon things would not be the same.
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. . (MORE)
Because the thought that by following it freely, that it would not be like a monarchy.
Strict construction is when judges interpret the law exactly as itis written. Loose construction is when a judge interprets the lawmore subjectively and more abstractly.
It's your interpretation of the constitution. The philosophy that allows narrow constitutional interpretation is called strict construction and the philosophy of broad constitutional interpretation is called loose construction.
The framers of the Constitution understood that one document couldnot address every issue. They new they had to create a documentthat would be useful for centuries.
A strict interpreter must change every word from the speakerslanguage to the listeners language. A loose interpreter has moreliberty to relay the message in the most efficient way withoutconcern of every word.
The Democratic Republicans, who were headed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (the Democratic Republicans later evolved into Democrats).
not so much why but what loose stood for is why he was more loose than strict
John Marshall is considered to have been a loose constructionist,rather than a strict constructionist. Marshall was the 4th ChiefJustice 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!
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.\n. \nA loose interpretation of the Constitution posits that the government of the United States hold all powers that are not specifical…ly denied to it by the Constitution. (MORE)
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 ad…dition, 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." (MORE)
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 Constition allows you to do. Anything that is not mentioned in the Constitution is thought to be Unconstitutional.. For example, When Jeffe…rson 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. (MORE)
nothing. he was a hypocrite. he went against what he believed. he believed that if it is not directly said in the constitution,, then it cant be done. yet he bought the Louisiana purchase.
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 business of government. The Constitution of the United States of America is the Supreme Law of that land and guides that nation i…n 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. (MORE)
It basically means that the government doesn't revolve around theConstitution. We still have goals for the Country that theConstitution doesn't cover.
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
obviously it would bring to an end because if there's no over lap there won't be a parliament in the first place
Vicarious liability is when someone can be held liable for the negligent acts of another person even though that person possessed no fault in furtherance of the negligent or tortious acts. For example, often employers can be held vicariously liable for the actions of their employers. Lets say your e…mployer asks you to run an errand across town. As you're driving you get in an accident and severely injure another person. Since you (1) were an employee (2) acting in the scope of your employment (3) and doing something in furtherance of your employers business - your employer could be vicariously liable for injuries even though you were the one who got into the accident. Strict liability is again a type of liability that does not require fault. For example, if you own a pet cougar (lets say that there is no law in the jurisdiction against this). You can take all precautions like installing an electric fence or putting up warning signs, but once that non community custom / wild animal escapes and injures someone you are strictly liable. This is compared to negligence. The law says that if I have a domesticated animal (dog, cat, rabbit) and lets say my dog escapes and bites someone, then I am not strictly liable and the plaintiff would need to prove that I was negligent. To further the concept of strict liability: Often strict liability claims come in the form of an abnormally dangerous activities. Think of this actual case (Miller v Civil Constructors): Police officers are firing their guns in a gravel pit for target practice. A bullet ricochets off a rock and strikes an innocent man near the site. Does this sounds like an ultrahazardous activity? Of course it does. Humans are firing guns at targets and we all know that if something solid his another solid thing it is likely to bounce off. So as the injured person you would not want to hold the officers strictly liable (because you want to dig deeper into the pocketbook), but you will want to hold the department or the owner of the gravel pit strictly liable. The court in the previous case ruled the following. For someone to the liable in a strict liability case when you are dealing with abnormally dangerous activities the following factors must be considered: 1) Was there a high degree of harm? 2) Was the likelihood of harm great? 3) Can you eliminate the risk with reasonable care? 4) Is this a matter of common usage? 5) Was it appropriate to the place? 6) Is the value outweighed by the dangerousness? Think about the factors, the outcome and look the case up. Sorry so long but I am a law student and this has helped me learn in the process :) (MORE)
Jefferson reversed his opinion on the stric interpretation of the constitution by the purcahse of the Louisiana Territory.By completing the purchase, Jefferson had to put aside his principles because the allowance for this type of transaction was not expressly listed in the Constitution. Waiting for… a Constitutional amendment might cause the deal to fall through. Therefore, Jefferson decided to go through with the purchase. Luckily, the people of the United States basically agreed that this was an excellent move. (MORE)
Some examples using "lose": To "lose" means the opposite of "to win." - You are going to lose your game tonight. - Did someone lose their hat? - He did not not know that he could lose it. Some examples using "loose": "Loose" means "not tight." - These jeans are big on me; they are too lo…ose. - That knot is too loose. - The screw is loose; it needs to be tighter. Some examples using both in the same sentence: -If you do not tie your loose shoelace, you may lose your shoe. -The management is trying to lose that loose cannon. -Don't lose my loose canary! (MORE)
The federalists were those in the colonies that believed in a looseconstruction of the United States' Constitution. This group feltthat with a stricter constitution their rights and liberties wouldbe jeopardized and all power would lie within the government.
What is The difference between the implied powers view of the constitution as to compared to loose construction view?
Implied powers are powers not specifically listed in the Constitution of the United States, but which the national government needs in order to carry out the expressed (strict) powers listed in the Constitution. Loose Construction is basically the same thing. A loose or liberal interpretation of the… Constitution allows for the expansion of federal powers beyond those specifically listed in the Constitution. (MORE)
In strict liability, there are certain defenses available whereas in absolute liability, there are none.
The strict constructionists wants to follow the Constitution downto the letter, in accordance with what the founding meant the termsto mean. The loose constructionists want to incorporate changes tosociety into the interpretation of the Constitution.
Cognitive learning is a person's learning skills, how they thinkand solve things. Strict behavioral learning is where a personlearns strictly based on conditioning.
He was a strict constructionist but during one of his terms he did a lot of loose constructionist thing, like buying Louisiana. But he is a strict constructionist and he lead all the others, against Alexander Hamilton who was the opposite of him and was a loose constructionist and lead that party.
Members of the Democratic-Republican Party believed in a strictinterpretation of the Constitution. They were opposed to theFederalists, who generally believed in a stronger nationalgovernment.
No. Jefferson believed in the exact opposite. He believed that if the Constitution were given too much power, the government would quickly become oppressive. In his mind, a loose construction would give people in power the authority to invent whatever powers they wanted for themselves and claim that… it was "implied" in the Constitution. He was originally against a Constitution at all, believing that power was much safer in the hands of the individual states than one all-encompassing central government. Once he lost that battle, he fought for strict construction and a Bill of Rights to guarantee individual freedoms. (MORE)
A script markup has much, much more rules and the code must beperfect down to the smallest detail or the webpage will reject it.When using transitional, many more tags and attributes can be used,and if there is an error it will simply output it to the errorconsole.
In a loose view, constitutionalist perspective means that you havethe right to challenge the government. With a loose view, you feelthat laws have been passed to prevent wars between the states.
The distinction between strict and absolute liability can be seen by examining the issue of causation. For strict liability offenses no evidence of intent or any other mens rea is required. It is however normal for the prosecution to be required to prove causation. For example, in speeding it i…s necessary to prove the defendant was "driving", but not that he intended to drive faster than permitted, or even that he knew he was doing so. Just like strict liability, absolute liability offences do not require evidence of intent or mens rea . As for causation, the prosecution only has to prove that the proscribed event occurred or situation existed, then the defendant will be liable because of his status. So, in the EMPRESS CAR CASE the company was liable for the pollution of the river even though the diesel tap was turned on by an unknown stranger (MORE)
Strict Constructionists believe a narrow, strict and literalinterpretation of the express language of the Constitution isproper. This judicial philosophy requires a court to apply theexact written text of the law or regulation to the issue before thecourt. Otherwise known as "plain meaning," the cou…rt must apply thestatute as written; there must be no interpretation or drawinginferences. The problem with the Strict Construction philosophy is that itsadherents refuse to address ambiguity in language, or that themeaning of words can change over the years. And, if the traditionalmeaning was applied by a court, would current citizens understandthe court's decision. Example: Take the word "appeasement." Priorto WWII, appeasement was another word for "negotiation." Today, itmeans cowardly yielding to a bulling opponent. If "appeasement" waswritten into the Constitution or statute, if a StrictConstructionist used the pre-WWII interpretation of the word, wouldcontemporary readers understand the court's intent? Loose Constructionists believe the opposite; the literal languageof the Constitution or statutes must be interpreted in light ofcontemporary society, social conduct and common understanding oflanguage. As Justice Marshall wrote in M cCulloch , "Soundconstruction of the Constitution must allow to the nationallegislature that discretion with respect to the means by which thepowers it confers are to be carried into execution which willenable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in themanner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate,let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means whichare appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which arenot prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of theConstitution, are constitutional." McCulloch v. Maryland , 17 US 316 (S.Ct. 1819-03-06) Complicating this philosophical debate is that each side has neveradhered strictly to their own principles. Jefferson, the hero ofStrict Constructionists, often took a Loose Constructionistapproach while President. Hamilton, hero to the LooseConstructionists, often argued for strict application of theConstitution in certain situations. Last, do not confuse Strict Construction with Originalism.Originalism (the term came into usage in the 1980's) is aphilosophy based on the principle that courts are merely to upholdthe law, not interpret, "create" or amend laws. The latter powersare, under Originalism, reserved strictly for the legislativebranch. (MORE)
This is an essay question for a religion course at St. Leo university. Do not answer this question.
As with Jefferson and Madison, Jackson had a mixed record on strict construction. On matters such spending federal funds on intrastate roads, he vetoed such legislation on the basis of it exceeding the enumerated power of congress to raise and distribute those funds so, stating: "it is true that …many of the taxes collected from our citizens through the medium of imposts have for a considerable period been onerous. In many particulars these taxes have borne severely upon the laboring and less prosperous classes of the community, being imposed on the necessaries of life" As for the removal of indigenous populations from the state of Georgia, it would seem that this was beyond the enumerated powers of congress however, as was his use of federal troops to put down labor unrest (MORE)
The Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson (and many others) believed he, as president, lacked authority to make such a deal. The deal was made, through representatives, between Jefferson and Napoleon Bonaparte, who was, at the time, effectively the ruler of France. However, Jefferson's and others' belief th…at the Purchase was unconstitutional took a back seat to fears of European powers' (at the time, primarily France's) establishing colonies in North America. (MORE)
In general, if something is 'strict', it is regarded as severe and authoritarian. For example, a parent could have strict disciplinary standards for their children; or a schoolteacher could be strict with regards to the behaviour of the children under him/her.The term can also mean that a person clo…sely follows or adheres to some principles - for example, a "strict vegan" might be one who adheres very closely to his practices of not eating animal products. (MORE)
No, an anti-federalist believes in a strict construction of the Constitution and a weak central government.
Strict construction meant that those interpreting it thought thatthat the government should only have powers that were expresslystated in the constitution. Like, it shouldn't stretch the limitsor try to do things that the constitution didn't say specificallywere ok to do.
A Strict constructionist is always fighting agains the civilliberals and rights. The term Liberal Constructionist refers topersons who believe in a variety meanings for different parts ofthe constitution. They do so by arguing for different meanings onconstitutional representations.