Scalia v. Scalia (click here)
Contents Acknowledgments
Introduction
1. Textualism as a Response to the “Living” Constitution
2. Textualism in Scalia’s Speeches and Extrajudicial Writings
3. Interpreting a Clear Clause: The Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause
4. Interpreting Competing Clauses: Mediating Religion between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses
5. When the Constitution Is Silent: Rejecting the Right to an Abortion Conclusion: Scalia’s Opportunistic Textualism
Notes
Bibliography Index
Sample (click here)
Richard Nixon was the first candidate for president to use it. He promised to pick strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court. The opposite of strict constructionist is "broad construction" looks to what someone thinks was the "intent" of the framers' language and expands and interprets the language extensively to meet current standards of human conduct and complexity of society.
There is no such thing as "activist judges." I would think judges that don't practice within their license is impeachable.
Laws, when written, cannot foresee the future, ie: the digital age. Laws cannot be expected to carry brevity when the circumstances are hideous for the age we live in; ie: Carriage horses have the right of way of any automobile. That is an absurd example, but, there are still statues on the books that reflect such things. A better law is for requiring the Amish to put tail lights and turn signals when driving their carriages at dusk or later.
The hideousness of the a poor interpretation of requiring Amish horse driven carriages to proceed along their way without such modern adjustments would be irresponsible if upheld as a religious right to die on country roads because of the lack of warning lights.
Strict constructionists are ideologues that subject citizens of the USA to the enforcement of political dogma. It is ridiculous and Scalia was the king of it, always seconded by Thomas.
