Against a Strict and Interpretation of the Constitution

“Strict Constructionism holds to the meaning of words and phrases used when they were written down.”[1] There is one reason; of course there are others such as the Constitution’s vague language, for why the Constitution should not be strictly interpreted.

The reason of which I speak is that strictly interpreting the Constitution means that a female cannot become president. The president, in the Constitution, is referred to as “he.” For example, in Article II, Section 1, “He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years….” Further in Article II, Section 1, “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death….” There are several other examples in Article II, sections 1, 2, and 3 where the president is referred to as being a male. On the contrary, there is no mention of “woman” in describing the president’s powers. By the very nature of strict constructionism a female can never become President of the United States.

This brings me to my point. Strict contructionism ignores changes in society. In terms of females, this method of interpretation ignores the fact that society’s view towards the capabilities of women has been altered.

Of course the vast majority of people do not adhere to a pure strict constructionist interpretation, to which have been referring. However, any judge whose judicial philosophy is that of a less than a pure constructionist judicial philosophy may run afoul with such advances in society as to stifle that advancement. This is because he/she may interpret the Constitution more on a pure constructionist terms on a particular issue.

The problem with strict constructionism is that it prevents women form becoming President of the United States. In broader terms, this method of constitutional interpretation can inhibit changes that can positively affect society.

[1] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism