A strict constructionist and a judicial interpretivist would disagree on the rightA. of eighteen-year-olds to vote.B. against self-incrimination.C. to assemble peacefully.D. to an abortion.E. to...

A strict constructionist and a judicial interpretivist would disagree on the right
A. of eighteen-year-olds to vote.
B. against self-incrimination.
C. to assemble peacefully.
D. to an abortion.
E. to due process.

Asked on by bigmouse

1 Answer | Add Yours

pohnpei397's profile pic

pohnpei397 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

The correct answer to this question is Option D.  These two people would disagree as to whether a woman has a right to an abortion.

The major difference between strict constructionists and judicial interpretivists is how they look at constitutional rights.  Strict constructionists say that people only have those rights that are specifically laid out in the Constitution.  Interpretivists say that we have to look at the Constitution and try to understand what its ideas are and apply those ideas to modern life.  Therefore, they believe that people have constitutional rights to things that are not actually written down in the Constitution.

All of the options other than Option D are things that are explicitly protected in the Constitution.  Both people would agree that we clearly have those rights.  But the right to an abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution so a strict constructivist would not agree that we have it.  A judicial interpretivist might say that the Constitution implies that we have the right to privacy and to make whatever we decisions we want about our own bodies. Therefore, they might say, we have the right to an abortion.

Sources:

We’ve answered 318,989 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question