Originalism vs strict constructionist

[Blair]

Hey all, doing some work on the supreme court and I need some help. It's a simple thing, and not that important but I'm looking at judicial philosophies and I've got the basis.

It's just what's the difference between originalism and strict constructionist approaches? I've read several times that people like Thomas and Scalia are both, but then I've heard that they're also just originalists. Is it just rhetoric or is there actually a difference? Thanks

[bedstuy]

"Strict constructionist" is the dumb version of originalism.

"Strict constructionist" means you just look at the text, not any other source.  It's sort of meaningless because sometimes text is unclear. 

"Originalism" means you interpret the text according to the understanding of the text and its meaning at the time of the Constitution was written.  So, you would look at dictionaries from the 1780s or historical sources for example.

I think that's the distinction, but maybe one of our blue avatar lawyers has a more precise explanation.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Strict Constructionists don't use source material to aid in interpreting as much as originalists.

Originialists see the Constitution as meaning exactly one thing when ratified in 1787, and it means the exact same thing forever, until amended.

Strict Constructionists don't delve so deeply into what the original framers or the people in 1787 thought the Constitution meant; instead they look at how the text is written and restrict that text to be as literal as possible.

A good example of the difference is the 1st Amendment right to free speech. A strict constructionist would say "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech," means NO law. "No" collectively exhausts any and all restrictions. Thus any law about slander or obscenity or fighting words, violates the amendment.

An originalist however might say, "the common law at the time of ratification recognized several categorical exclusions from the definition of speech. Things like slander, obscenity, and fighting words. The Constitution does not say that it the text, but that was how the world worked back then, so the word "speech" does not include those categorical exclusions, because 1787 natural law said so. That puts them at odds with the strict constructionists.