strict constructionist dissent

[there buster]

Quote:

“[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.”

Here's a strict constructionist argument which sounds a great deal like Clarence Thomas or Antony Scalia, but neither of them wrote it. Care to guess who did and in what important case?

[David Koot]

While I don't recall the case, I agree with the statement. However, from Marshall onward, justices have put their own spin on the Constitution, whether claiming to be strict constructionists or not. Under some regimes, though, justices have indeed resorted to wholesale lawmaking, under the nebulous (claimed) authority of the 'intent of the Framers.'

Dave