Want this question answered?
He was a strict constructionist. He viewed interpretted the Constituion narrowly. Strict constructionist were also called antiFederalists.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
John Adams was generally considered to be a strict constructionist, meaning he believed in a strict interpretation of the constitution. However, there were some instances where he deviated from this view, such as when he signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which many argued were unconstitutional. So, while Adams leaned towards strict constructionism, his actions were not always consistent with this perspective.
the states' powers would be restricted and weakend.
he was a strict constructionist who believed in a limited interpretation of the Constitution. The Louisiana Purchase, which doubled the size of the United States, required Jefferson to take an expansive view of the Constitution's implied powers. However, Jefferson justified the purchase on the grounds that it would secure the future of the agrarian republic and prevent European powers from gaining control of the Mississippi River.
the social constructionist view that emphasises shared meanings that derive from the representation of an object
No, he is not. Strict constructionalists only want the Constitution interpreted as it was written, and many scholars and judges who agree with that view tend to espouse a very conservative judicial philosophy. Mr. Obama, while a former professor of constitutional law, is more of a judicial moderate: he seems to believe that the law evolves and thus, the constitution can be adapted to changing circumstances.
strict interputation
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.
John Marshall had a loose interpretation of the Constitution while Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict interpretation of it. John Marshall strongly believed in the elastic clause (the necessary and proper clause) which meant: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". So he thought that if a law was needed, then it could be added and adjusted into the Constitution and one didn't have to stick to the exact words of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict construction of the Constitution, but his actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act showed loose interpretations because neither one of those were written in the Constitution. He very rarely showed a strict interpretation where he stuck directly to the Constitution, so they really weren't that different in views even though in titles they were.
A loose constructionist view of the U.S. Constitution is one factor that has led to the national government expanding its power. The opposite philosophy is known as strict constructionism.
it was strict