Strict constructionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strict constructionism is a philosophy of judicial interpretation and legal philosophy that limits judicial interpretation to the meanings of the actual words and phrases used in law, and not on other sources or inferences. Adherents look strictly at the text in question rather than relying either on legislative intent (as gleaned from contemporaneous commentaries or legislative debate) or on metaphysical ideas such as natural law. Some of the doctrine's most forceful proponents have been Supreme Court of the United States Justice Hugo Black and former U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Chief Justice of Australia, Owen Dixon.

"Strict construction" is also used loosely as a term of art in American political discourse to refer to "conservative judges". This usage is legally problematic but pervasive. eg:(on the campaign trail in 2000, for example, President George W. Bush promised to appoint "strict constructionists in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas", even though Scalia has said that he is "not a strict constructionist[] and no-one ought to be") The meaning of "strict construction", then, may turn on who uses it in what context; an appellate judge asking counsel at oral argument whether the statute should be construed strictly is likely using the term in its legal sense; a candidate on the campaign trail who promises to appoint strict constructionists is likely using the term as a surrogate for a broader set of conservative legal views.

[edit] Rationale

The underlying argument behind strict constructionism is that if a legislature truly wants to enact a particular law, they are capable of writing it down in plain language and passing it, and it is not the job of the judiciary to reconstruct what the legislature's intent could have been. Supporters interpret this position as judging based on what the law is, not what it should be. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 5 -6 (1957), "[t]he United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source". It must be stated that such a strict and simple view is not universal.