Question by choff: Why is strict construction better than loose interpretation of the constitution?
I have to do a debate about whether strict or loose interpretation is better. I am contending for stern interpretation. If anyone has some ideas about main points I would love the answers. ALso, if you cognize anywhere to get resources that would be very benefitial. Thanks!

Best answer:

Answer by fredo
Strict Interpretation is better because it is an approach more likely to get to what the original intent of the Founders of America was. In other words, lax interpretationists can make fresh laws or annul older ones established on an understanding of the Constitution that the Founders, those who composed the document, never had.The views are fundamentally antithetic, in that those who believe in stern construction be given to believe that the Constitution is a repaired, resterning document which resterns the government to sure roles. Loose interpretationists tend to think that the Constitution should be germinating as standards germinate.That, though, is what the Congress is for–to better the Constitution in accordance with what the evolving chaste standards are (as found out by the elections kept every 2 years). Judges construing the Constitution should be strict constructionists because their role is to find out what the law is and what the law says, not what the law SHOULD BE.Loose interpretationists finger that judges should be making laws from the bench, but that goes against the American Constitutional system, which allows for the people to choose their lawmakers. No taxation without stand forationand the Supreme Court/other judges do not stand for anyone

What do you think? Answer below!