Of course, to be fair, being a strict constructionist doesn’t necessarily mean that the Constitution cannot be amended, only that it should be construed strictly, not allowing the government to do anything that isn’t clearly stated. Indeed, a strict constructionist would be more likely to push for Constitutional amendments than a loose constructionist, since the latter would be more likely find ways to interpret the text to read as they wished.
Still, for someone who has touted the Constitution as such a fine foundational document, it’s a bit odd to see the number of amendments the President has supported in differing degrees at different times.
I’m just amused that nobody’s asked the question yet in RL.
Indeed. They should.
Of course, to be fair, being a strict constructionist doesn’t necessarily mean that the Constitution cannot be amended, only that it should be construed strictly, not allowing the government to do anything that isn’t clearly stated. Indeed, a strict constructionist would be more likely to push for Constitutional amendments than a loose constructionist, since the latter would be more likely find ways to interpret the text to read as they wished.
Still, for someone who has touted the Constitution as such a fine foundational document, it’s a bit odd to see the number of amendments the President has supported in differing degrees at different times.