What would a strict constructionist and a judicial interpretivist disagree on? The right of eighteen-year-olds to vote, the right against self-incrimination, the right to assemble peacefully, the right to an abortion, or the right to due process?
A strict constructionist and a judicial activist would disagree on the right to an abortion. A person who believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution believes that the government can only take action about things that are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. These people believe in a limited interpretation of the Constitution. A person who believes judges can interpret the Constitution believes in a loose view of the document.
Establishing a voting age is covered in the Constitution. Both groups would support allowing 18-year-olds to vote. The Constitution has an amendment about self-incrimination. Thus, a person believing in a strict and loose interpretation would support this. Assembling peacefully and the right to due process are also supported in the Constitution.
However, there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution. Thus, a person who supports a strict view of the Constitution would most likely not support the right to having an abortion. A person who believes in a loose view would say that the judiciary could review this topic.