Strict Vs Loose Interpreation

386 Words2 Pages
Strict vs. Loose Interpretation of the Constitution Many argue what were the intentions of the Founding Fathers when creating the U.S Constitution. "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases," quoted Thomas Jefferson. 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. In order for the Constitution to be understood, the chaos around the time it was written must be first understood. Yet that chaos in not the same as now, therefore the constitution must be interpreted loosely in a way that it fits society nowadays. 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 be interpreted in light of historic and societal change. Loose construction allows the government to expand powers that are not specifically outlined in the Constitution as long as these powers are not specifically prohibited. Society changed from day to day and the country has to be ready for when changes are made. If powers are not outlined in the constitution, then it is up to the government (courts, judges, etc.) to decide what changes need to be made to fit the needs of society within these days. No written Constitution can anticipate all the means that might oppress people, so it is sometimes necessary for judges to fill in the gaps. The constitution was clearly meant to be interpreted and amended over time. For example, look at the Bill of Rights, and how generally various rights are stated. You have a right to free speech, yet restrictions (et al. slander, 'clear and present danger', privacy,
Open Document