strict constructionism or liberal constructionism
Judges are the people who face a lot of difficulties in interpreting the law. The supreme court judges are at times faced with challenges to choose between unpopular, legal decisions. Based on the judges’ stance on strict constructionism or liberal constructionism.
Strict constructionists or originalists are believers of the strict interpretation of the constitution. The legal philosophy, as it is, requires that the judges interpret the constitution. The judge should only consider what is presented to them within the four corners of the constitution as a legal document. Judges applying strict constructionist philosophy ignore context and place focus on the meaning on the page. The circumstance that surrounds the ruling fails to factor in decision making as a process. Strict constructionists believe that the constitution has the same meaning since the day it was promulgated until the day it is amended or repealed. Strict constructionism fails to consider the political, personal, or context, motivations towards the original meaning of the constitution. Judicial activism is the approach that constructionist does not seek to obtain a specific result using a judgment; the interpretation is what matters in the mentioned approach.
Apart from strict constructionism, the constitution can also be interpreted through liberal construction. Liberal construction allows the judge in charge to factor in context. The judge has the freedom to consider the purpose and object of the statute before deciding what the article means. Liberal constructionist does not entail that words are forced out of their semantic meaning. It is an interpretation that allows for reasonable explanation to help the judgment attain the objective for which the instrument is meant. It is also designed to discover the purpose for which the word is applied.
The conflict of philosophy between liberal and strict constructionism raises the question of whether the constitution should be considered a dead document or an evolving document. In fair terms, the constitution should be regarded as an evolving document. It is reasonable to acknowledge that a lot has changed since the constitution was drafted in 1788. The original meaning of the constitution, as it was promulgated in the year, 1788 does not make sense anymore when applied to contemporary and modern legal dilemmas. If the constitution is implemented strictly, it leads to the doctrine of absurdity.
In conclusion, supreme court judges or any other judges for that matter will remain just and fair if they apply the philosophy of liberal constructionism while considering the constitution as an evolving document.