Please define "strict, constitutional constructionism" as viewed by Bush. You know libertarians believe in "strict, constitutional constructionism" and if you look how they define it would be at odds with most conservative republicans.
Are saying Bush believes in the exact literal reading of the Constitution leaving no room for interpretation?
Or he believes in the original / historical intentions of the writers?
The definition of "strict, constitutional constructionism" is as ambiguous as the Constitution itself.
Bush is in opposition to activist judges who re-interpret laws to suit their modern political view. Instead of leaving certain decisions to the legislative branch some liberal judges actually make law.
Had it not been for these types of judges Bush wouldn’t need to support most of the issues you cite.
Also in this "democracy" very few politicians take responsibility for what they do and cause. A "balanced budget amendment" is a tool to force responsibility on the legislator to convince them to quit spending more money then they take in. I don’t support it but I understand the desire to gain some control. But even so what do you think a "strict, constitutional constructionist" thinks about taxes to begin with?
There’s another thread going on right now about "Reagonomics". "Liberals kept spending" and "Reagan kept cutting". Who's fault was it?
"Victim's rights" is something I don’t agree with. Justices should be blind not only toward the accused but toward the victim and the law should be applied based on the facts of the crime itself rather then having a parade of family and friends of the victims crying before a jury.
