Loose constructionism vs. strict construction??

Question

i am doing a persuasive essay on this court case. it will take a while to explain it, so i'll post a link here, so you can see:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_1189/

so for the essay, i have to explain if it was unconstitutional or not. and i have to explain why. how would you interpret this court case in loose constructionism or broad constructionism, and do you think it violates the constitution? just yes or no i want to take a survey..

THANKS SOO MUCH!!

10 points for best answer!

Answer 1

I don't think it violates the Constitution.  As Kennedy states, the use of the fee money is viewpoint neutral; furthermore, it is content neutral.  Under modern First Amendment jurisprudence, it poses no problems.

The tests used for speech cases are pretty clearly defined and consistently applied, so there really is no "broad" or "strict" construction issue here.  However, if one really is a "strict constructionist" of the First Amendment, they would still say the fee is not unconstitutional -- because the text states that the Amendment applies to Congress only, not public universities.

Another thing -- virtually no one in the legal profession uses the terms "loose constructionism" or "broad constructionism."  You might want to replace these with "broad interpretation" in your essay.

Good luck.

Answer 2

Loose constructionism is used, if at all, by strict constructionists as a strawman to disparage those with whom they disagree. Some sources this to establish that the ideology it describes actually has adherents.

Strict constructionism refers to a particular legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. In the United States the phrase is also commonly used more loosely as a generic term for conservativism among the judiciary.

Answer 3

It seems that is covered by the 1st amendment which guarantees free speech. As a public university uses public tax money then to be constitutional they would have to honor the decision of the court which I believe to be correct----this same university could not use any such reasoning and charge fees to promote one religion over another so my reasoning is the same with the free speech section of the 1st amendment....STRICT is the answer.