Constructionist Myth

I keep hearing people call out for 'constructionist' judges. This whole notion is quite absurd because the constitution needs to be interpreted. Two different judges will read the same line in the constitution, interpret it 'strictly', and still come out with different answers.

Here is an example of what I am talking about. This is a little exercise I have used with a couple of friends of mine who are want strict constructionist. I have only done this in person, so, I am not sure how it will play out on a blog.

First, Read this sentence and try to determine the authors meaning:

I did not say that he said that

Now, scroll down to part two.

















Part two. Do you think you know what it meat?

What about this:


I did not say he said that - meaning, it was not me who said he said it, but it still was said by someone.

I did not say he said that - meaning, I deny saying anything.

I did not say he said that - meaning, while not verbaly saying it, I may have implied it or non-verbally did say it.

I did not say he said that - meaning, it was said, but not by him.

I did not say he said that - meaning, he may have implied it or communicated it non-verbally.

I did not say he said that - meaning, he said something, just not that.

So, even though, the vast majority of judges are constructionist, they are still going to come up with different rulings. Activist judges get overturned on appeal. So, lets please just call whole issue what it really is... Judges who just interpret the laws differently than you would like.