Define if you can a "constructionist".
Although I'm not a 'strict' constructionist, Wikipedia has a definition of SC that covers the basics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism
You'll see on that page that Scalia refers to 'reasonable' constructionism or 'originalism'. That is what I agree w/. The easiest example of this for me is saying that the word 'speech' should be interpreted as 'speech', not as 'expression'. 'Speech' is an objectively definable word which simply refers to written or spoken words. 'Expression' is purely subjective. It can include all of the following & more: a book, a song, burning a flag, streaking, flipping someone the bird, etc.
I think the criteria on which a judicial decision is based should always first be the actual wording of the constitution & the founders commonly known original intent in choosing those particular words. Not the 'precedent'-based daisy-chain-to-dictatorship the courts have been following for decades.
It's late & I'm about to go to sleep, so I hope this makes sense. :)