[jas3]

Strict constructionists don't think it is possible to divine original intent and focus on the what the document says, not on what the original intent might be.

I disagree with that. Obviously, what the document says is the controlling factor, but it's a rather brief document and it doesn't go into much detail.

You disagree with what? A: that strict constructionists don't think it is possible to divine original intent or B: strict constructionism itself?

The fact that the Constitution is brief and doesn't go into much detail reflects that the Federal government is supposed to have very limited powers. If one wants to add more powers and/or detail one need only amend the document. Sadly there is no need to amend the document any longer since any changes can be safely made by only 5 people with lifetime appointments.

That's why a study of the Federalist Papers gives an insight as to what principles were being established in those few lines. That's still a strict constructionist interpretation.

The anti-Federalist papers are also a good read and similarly provide relevant background.

What is not "strict constructionist" is inventing a new principle not mentioned in the Constitution and giving it constitutional status.

Of course you are correct. But one must be careful not to read into the document one's own wishes, simply because the left does so routinely.

jas3

[Dog Gone]

I think strict constructionists DO divine original intent. Words are only a combination of letters, so of course one has to make a determination of what they mean. And they only can mean what was intended at the time they were written.

If there were a constitutional right "to be gay", it should be only construed as a right to happiness, not homosexuality. Okay, bad example, but I think it illustrates my point.