|
I'm not sure I like the term "strict constructionist" because it carries all sorts of baggage. Scalia calls himself a "textualist", though he'll be the first to tell you that textualists can and do disagree -- which doesn't surprise me as a lawyer, because I can tell you that parties to a contract disagree about what was intended by the words all the time. That doesn't mean a court can invent new terms instead of trying to find the most reasonable meaning. And that's all textualism is: we have words, we have to figure out what those words mean, or what range of meanings they have. The reason to write things down and to choose the words you use is precisely so that there will be a guide to future conduct. Otherwise why bother writing it down?
The rationale for having judicial review (back in Marbury v Madison) is that the constitution is law, just like a contract or a will, so figuring out what it means is a judicial task. That necessarily implies that the words have an ascertainable meaning. Plus, if it's necessary to change what the Constitution says, there is a mechnaism built right into it, in Article V. It's not for judges to change it.
That isn't to say that there are no new issues or new applications of old concepts - that's why the const has open-ended phrases, precisely so that it's flexible. But flexible is not the same thing as mutable. Original meaning is a perfectly workable guide to decision.
|