You will never see anything like this on webcameron

Britain and America have so much in common and then, wham, you're reminded of some big differences... Here are two big reminders...

Exhibit A.  A video from Rudy Giuliani promising to give Americans "fiscal responsibility" and "strict constructionist judges" for Christmas...

Exhibit B.  More powerful evidence this one.  On the day that Nick Clegg 'confesses' to atheism, Mike Huckabee's very Christian video message...

They're both on PlayPolitical, as is this CBS news report on why John McCain is making a comeback.

Comments

[Malcolm Dunn]

Excuse my ignorance but what are 'constructionist judges' please?

[David]

"Excuse my ignorance but what are 'constructionist judges' please?"

Literal interpretation of the constitution, as opposed to extrapolating from it.

[Teck]

David [Dec 19, 2007 at 17:10], why didn't they use the derivative 'constitutionalist' which would have at least offered some indication of the type of judges!

I thought it meant judges who made their own rules up as they went along, as in 'construction'; any deviation from that implied meaning is just the ultimate abuse of the English language. Ah well, they are Americans after all!

[Malcolm Dunn]

Thank you David. Could you explain what this means in practice and what are the political implications please?

[David]

"why didn't they use the derivative 'constitutionalist' which would have at least offered some indication of the type of judges! "

It does offer some indication of the type of judges. Just because you aren't aware of the term......

"thought it meant judges who made their own rules up as they went along, as in 'construction'; any deviation from that implied meaning is just the ultimate abuse of the English language"

Applying your own meanings to words that have been established for some time would seem worse abuse.

"Thank you David. Could you explain what this means in practice and what are the political implications please?"

It's essentially saying that there will be a lack of judicial activism and a more passive approach. Constructionist judges tend to simply judge laws by what is explicitly mentioned in the constitution, and therefore do not tend legislate through judicial ruling.

[Drusilla]

To be fair, the term in question was 'strict constructionalist', not 'constructionist' - the point being that the judges in question would put a strict construction, rather than a liberal [in the sense of 'free' or 'generous'] construction upon the words of the Constitution - which were, in many cases, argued over tooth and nail by clever lawyers and legal historians before being ratified, so probably ought to be taken to mean something.

Whereas, the problem with 'constitutionalist' is that it would mean as little or as much as anyone wanted it to mean: the liberal constructionalists being just as sure they are adhering to the 'real' intention of the Constitution's framers by reading it anachronistically as the strict constructionalists are when they read it very literally indeed.

All of which points to the nonsense of a written constitution: it's really only ever as good as the people who interpret and enforce it.

[David]

Sorry. I just tend to get very annoyed with people who sneer about American English.

[Iain Murray]

Drusilla has it right. It's all down to interpretations of how you the Founding Fathers constructed the Constitution. Here's a definition from a legal dictionary:

strict construction n. interpreting the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language without reference to the differences in conditions when the Constitution was written and modern conditions, inventions, and societal changes. By contrast "broad construction" looks to what someone thinks was the "intent" of the framers' language and expands and interprets the language extensively to meet current standards of human conduct and complexity of society.

What it means in practice, Malcolm, is that people strict constructionist judges don't find things "in the penumbra" of the Constitution, or interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" as allowing government to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And so on.

[Teck]

Thanks for the explanation, Drusilla! Taken in good spirit, David - you must be from the legal department!

[Scottish Conservative]

i cant post the link cos it typepad says it is comment spam but if you go to youtube and type in mike huckabee god phone call you get a real cracker of a video!

[Malcolm Dunn]

Thanks everone for the explanation. It seems if you post a short comment like 'thanks everyone' it get's locked into the spam filter but if you make your comment longer like I just have it gets through. Madness!

[Editor]

Click here for Huckabee's phone call from God moment referred to by Scottish Conservative.

Apologies again for all the problems with commenting folks. I hope it will be rectified soon. STILL waiting to hear from TypePad.

[Lindsay Jenkins]

Guiliani is sending a coded message that he will appoint right wing judges who favour abolishing abortion and are particularly tough on criminals.

Nixon used the same laguage and meant the same thing.

[Moral minority]

Sinclair Lewis said "when fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Lewis could have had Huckabee in mind.

[Alex Swanson]

Guiliani is sending a coded message that he will appoint right wing judges who favour abolishing abortion and are particularly tough on criminals.

Or possibly he is sending a message that he will appoint judges who regard the law as more important than their personal opinions.

Which would you prefer? Judges who enforce the law or judges who believe their position allows them to pretend the law is what they personally would have liked it to be?

[Lindsay Jenkins]

Alex - the words are well recognised in the US - there isn't a possibly about them.

[Ben Stevenson]

Lindsay,
Your right about this being at least in part about abortion. Giuliani is probably hoping this will get him some votes from pro-life people.

Back in April, Rudy Giuliani did an interview with CNN in which he explained what he means by strict constructionist.

Rudy Giuliani seems to be trying to get (or at least, not lose) the votes of pro-life people, but also seems to interpret the term "strict constructionist" differently to pro-life Republicans do.

[North Briton]

Praise the Lord we're British!

[Ben Stevenson]

Here is the CNN interview featuring comments on strict constructionalist judges.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/04/sitroom.03.html

[Edison Smith]

Mike Huckabee is a dangerous, ignorant man.

Giuliani is slimey and untrustworthy.

[Mark Fulford]

Mike Huckabee is as cynical as those insincere companies whose marketing people do charity (with their brand name attached). If Christmas really was a time for Christ, family and no politics, why's he trying to make political capital out of Christ? Shouldn't he be with his family instead?

[Aethelbald, King of Wessex]

A thorough backgrounder on constitutional analysis is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_interpretation

The penumbra word, above, relates to the so-called right of privacy. There is no such right explicitly in the constitution. It is developed from the "emanations and penumbra" supposedly issuing from the explicit rights. But why does it matter? Because Roe v. Wade was decided on the privacy issue. A woman can choose to have an abortion at any time and for any reason because it's nobody elses business (according to this view) what she does. This is absolutely not a British-style fudge. U.S. women have unfettered abortion rights.

Rudy is a Northeastern GOP'er, like Mitt Romney. Both have pro-choice history. The strict-constructionist mode of constutional analysis would probably overturn Roe v. Wade, and this is how Rudy hopes to ingratiate himself with the Christian Right without publicly reversing himself. Rudy is using a dog whistle. The Christian Right leadership can hear it and may pass it on to their flocks, but the majority of liberal-ish Northeastern Republicans (who are pro-choice) don't know their constructionism from their living-constitutionalism and will not hear the change of position. Fun stuff, eh?

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

I wouldn't call Mike Huckabee dangerous. He is supposed to be a quite decent family man, with strong Christian values.
However, he would certainly lose to Hillary (or Obama)if he were to become the Republican Presidential candidate.
The GOP is better served with a candidate that can appeal to more than just the Christian Right of the party (and I'm not talking about Ron Paul).

[Ben Stevenson]

Aethelbald,
I suspect that Rudy Giuliani is hoping that social conservatives will think that Rudy Giuliani would help them reverse Roe vs Wade by the types of judges he appoints. However, he has not changed his pro-choice position, and has made it clear that he think "strict constructionist judges" can support Roe vs Wade.

I think a Rudy Giuliani nomination would be disastrous for the Republican party's electability, because it would mean that many social conservatives will not vote, or vote for 3rd party candidates. It will break the coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and defence conservatives.

I think it is better for people to try and change laws or constitutions that they don't like, rather than invent ways of interpreting them that get the result you want (e.g. Roe vs Wade).

[Alex Swanson]

Lindsay - having an interest in firearms law, I think you are reading into Giuliani's words what you want rather than what they actually mean.

A strict constructionist reading would not include the right of privacy, because it isn't in the constitution. BUT it also explicitly includes the right to bear arms, because that IS in the constitution, but is denied by liberals. My understanding is that Giuliani is generally against civilian firearms ownership. So maybe, if you want to believe he's signalling, maybe he's signalling that on this issue he is prepared to tolerate gun ownership for the sake of having gun owners' support. But the main point is that to many people this is just as important as the abortion issue. You should not focus on just what interests you.

[Lindsay Jenkins]

Alex - I merely asked a US attorney with 40 years experience of law including arguing cases in front of the US Supreme Court. Perhaps I should have said that!

[HW]

As Ron Paul said in a interview after seeing Huckabee's video "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" He isn't wrong.

[The man who]

Perhaps we shouldn't be too shocked that the US is so different to the UK- we developed almost totally separately for 200 yrs from independance to the coming of satellite TV and cyberspace

"As Ron Paul said in a interview after seeing Huckabee's video "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" He isn't wrong.

Indeed. Mind you in the leadership contest could you imagine Davis saying summat like that about Cameron (or vice versa)!!

Ben said "I think a Rudy Giuliani nomination would be disastrous for the Republican party's electability, because it would mean that many social conservatives will not vote, or vote for 3rd party candidates.
It isn't a comfortable situation for the Republicans, because Giuliani might take the swing voters but alienate the core vote, whilst Huckerbee would appeal to the core vote but alienate the swing vote.

The only comfort the GOP can take is in the fact that Hilary is much the same in reverse. If Barack can win the Dem primaries he will be a shoo-in for the big one!

"It will break the coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and defence conservatives."

Is that a meaningful coalition anyway?

[Votedave]

I have just noticed the Webcameron forums have been removed from the website. As an ardent David Cameron supporter I am profoundly dismayed.

If anyone here has constributed to the forums then I would call on them to demand its restoration on the "contact us" section of conservatives.com