In the context of approaches to legal interpretation, differentiate between strict construction, original intent, and modernism.

What will be an ideal response?

Answers will vary. The term strict construction is widely used in the press and by politicians. Republican presidential candidates routinely promise to appoint justices who will interpret the Constitution strictly and not "legislate from the bench." The opposite of strict construction is broad construction. Advocates of strict construction often contend that the government should do nothing that is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. In 1803, for example, some strict constructionists argued that the national government had no power to double the size of the country by purchasing the Louisiana Territory. Such radical strict constructionism had little support in 1803 and is accepted by few people today.A second conservative philosophy is called originalism. Justice Thomas is a well-known advocate of this approach. Originalists believe that to determine the meaning of a particular constitutional phrase, the Court should look to the intentions of the founders. What did the framers of the Constitution themselves intend when they included the phrase in the document? To discern the intent of the founders, justices might look to sources that shed light on the founders' views. These sources could include writings by the founders, newspaper articles from that period, the Federalist Papers, and notes taken during the Constitutional Convention.Originalism can be contrasted with what has been called modernism. Modernists seek to examine theConstitution in the context of today's society and to consider how modern life affects the words in the document.