Replies

I disagree with you, of course.

CJ Rehnquist was a strict constructionist of sorts. IMO, J Scalia is a strict constructionist of sorts, along with being a self-professed textualist and an originalist. Scalia's view on this entire matter of interpretation makes a lot of sense.

"The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words."

>>>>Without the anchor of intent we are left with little more than a word game, where the enumerated powers of the federal government are limited only by the combinations of possible definitions we can find to assign the words.

Word game? I think not. Obviously Scalia disagrees with you and so do I. You confuse the term strict constructionism with loose constructionism. The former being a conservative view that limits judicial interpretation, the latter being a liberal view more aligned with judicial activism.

Suffice it to say, whether you support original intent or the originalism associated with strict constructionism, both interpret the Constitution narrowly.

Once again. "Writings outside the context of the Constitution, while historical in nature are nothing more then personal opinions and do not constitute any authority, nor are they binding in matters of governance and law. If these writings were significant, the Founders would have made them part of the Constitution itself."

"and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States"

Hmmmmm. I wonder how he feels about the 14th amendment.

The authors of the 14th thought it made the BOR applicable to the states. They were the only ones who felt that way. Congress, the states, the courts ... all assumed differently -- to this day.

"The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words."
Once again. "Writings outside the context of the Constitution, while historical in nature are nothing more then personal opinions and do not constitute any authority, nor are they binding in matters of governance and law. If these writings were significant, the Founders would have made them part of the Constitution itself."

Very often these writings are the historical record of that promulgation.