View source for Talk:Loose constructionism

I suspect that the term "loose" constructionism is used, ''if at all'', by strict constructionists as a strawman to disparage those with whom they disagree.  I would like to see some sources cited in this article to establish that the ideology it describes actually has adherents; otherwise, this article should be put on VFD.  --[[User:RussBlau|Russ Blau]] [[User_talk:RussBlau|(talk)]] 16:22, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

== Unqualified Redirect Page ==

I don't see how Loose Construction can be a redirect page to Strict Constructionism.  The two are opposing ways of interpreting the constitution.  I suggest we revert back to the stub and expand the article. [[User:TurtleTurtle|~ Jared ~]] 20:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
:Because "loose construction" is not an actual method of interpretation, but merely a perjorative term used by some who self-identify as a strict constructionist against those who they think aren't.  And not a term with a whole lot of usage, either.  To illustrate, there are only 356 google hits for "loose constructionism" outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors.[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2005-37%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=%22loose+constructionism%22+-wikipedia]  "Strict constructionism", by comparison, has 49,800 non-Wikipedia derived hits.[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2005-37%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=%22strict+constructionism%22+-wikipedia]  "Loose constructionism" should only be referred to in the latter's article, ''if at all,'' considering how the most content this article ever had was its unsourced definition as the antonym of strict constructionism.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 22:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
::loose construction is where you bend the constitution. Hamilton said that if it was not in the constitution than you could do it.