Which two arguments support loose constructionism?

Loose constructionism is an ideological position of legal interpretation (especially of the Constitution) by means of which the judges have the power not only to judge compliance with the different laws, but also to interpret the text of the legal provisions of the Constitution, defining its scope and content.

Two arguments in favor of this position are, on the one hand, that the Constitution is not a rigid law but that it is constantly being modified through jurisprudential interpretations, with which it is necessary for judges to be able to interpret its clauses in a lax way; and on the other, that a rigid Constitution would be easily set aside by society, since it would not adapt to changes in circumstances on its part.

ssishua7auahwuw8uwhwh

keep quite, set up,sorry