Examples Of Judicial Constructionism In Jurisprudence

In Jurisprudence, there are two philosophies subscribed to about judicial interpretation. Judicial Activism argues that it is less about literal phrasing of the words and more about how the words could be interpreted in today’s society, and a strict constructionist believes that every word in the law is written very carefully, and therefore would just interpret the law considering exactly how it was constructed into mind. Justice Brennan’s argument that the 8th amendment would deem the death penalty unconstitutional could be correct according to a judicial activist, but a strict constructionist may rule differently.
One clear example of judicial activism is from the reading of Humpty Dumpty. In the particular scene we read, Humpty Dumpty discusses with Alice about how words can have many different meanings depended on who is reading it for what reason. This is shown when the passage writes, “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more or less.’” Humpty Dumpty is stating this rather
Wade is a key example of judicial activism and strict constructionism going up against one another. The court opinion ruled that abortion is a constitutional right for every woman, as the fourteenth amendment referencing individual liberty is broad enough to put it under constitutional protection. This is a clear example of judicial activism, as their is no place in the constitution that references abortion, yet it is covered under the constitution. The dissent had a more strict constructionist and originalist (what the founding fathers meant) way of thought, arguing that at the time of the Bill of Rights creation all states had laws against abortion, therefore meaning that the constitution does not protect it. This example truly demonstrates how a case can be made for many different laws to mean what a judge may deem it no matter