Talk:Strict constructionism

message: Can anyone find a more reputable source than a random blog for the view that "...the term is merely a codeword for judges who tend to support conservative causes, and has no intrinsic meaning of its own." ?
Surely Wikipedia isn't stooping to use blogs in our reference notes yet, are we? --Alfoor 04:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is one from Peter J. Rubin, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University and President of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. And here is one from a guy who has argued 20 cases before the Supreme Court. Why does it matter whether they say so in a blog or a magazine or a book? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Haha! Isn't Wiki basically a glorified blog? 209.91.15.10 (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog Reference 

message: This is called textualism, not constitutionalism.  Please fix it.  (this unsigned comment was added on 26 February 2007 from IP 71.253.228.144)
:Neither the current version of the article nor the version which existed on 26 February 2007 contain the word "constitutionalism."  I suspect that 71.253.228.144 just misread it. NCdave 00:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I am of the opinion that the entire "Rationale" section should be removed. Any objections? – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the suggested removal. That entire section of the article is poorly written and unsourced and was clearly not drafted by a licensed attorney.--Coolcaesar 22:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, your suggestion that the reputed contribution must come from a licensed attorney is inane.  What about a constitutional scholar—e.g., a political scientist?  To the extent that my personal experience helps, plenty of professional lawyers I've spoken with are categorically unaware of these methods of interpretation, lest the judge he or she works with has a particular reputation.  --75.101.60.3 (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rationale" 

message: In this quote: "The common sense of man approves the judgment mentioned by Puffenstuff (sic. Puffendorf), that the Bolognian law which enacted ‘that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity’...", both the case being cited and the older case being indirectly quoted obviously refer to the words of Samuel von Pufendorf; I'm not sure where "Puffenstuff" came from in this context. This passage appears on several pages; I've left in the '[sic]' but changed "Puffenstuff" to "Pufendorf" and corrected the link to refer to the political philosopher rather than to the children's television series. - Liber loquax (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puffenstuff vs. Pufendorf 

message: Since loose constructionism redirects here, this article should probably contain a more complete coverage of both philosophies and compare and contrast them for a little more clarity. Should we consider just moving this to a page called Constructionism instead so that the coverage can be more well-rounded? Vramasub (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loose Constructionism 

message: Currently, the source (Questia.com), is to an unknown page. It's unclear what article is being cited. Furthermore, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1900&context=facpubs supports the inference from the first part about Black (the "no law" part) that he was a textualist. I propose adjusting the entry to reflect this, or to at least show that there is some dispute over Black's legacy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.120.206 (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black's Legacy 

message: The first paragraph ends with an unclear "It is contrasted with"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satchal (talk • contribs) 02:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctrine of absurdity