In criminal law, criminal laws must be interpreted strictly. This means that a criminal law cannot be implicitly or intentionally extended beyond the appropriate meaning of the language used or the meaning reasonably justified by its terms. Criminal laws therefore do not apply to offences and individuals who are not clearly described and provided for in their language. The strict interpretation of criminal laws complements the leniency rule, which states that ambiguities in criminal law must be resolved in favour of the accused. The term has been criticized as misleading or meaningless.  Few judges describe themselves as strict builders because of the narrow meaning of the term. Antonin Scalia, the judge most identified with the term, once wrote, „I am not a strict constructivist, and no one should be,“ calling philosophy „a humiliated form of textualism that discredits any philosophy.“ Scalia summarized her textualist approach as follows: „A text should not be interpreted strictly, and it should not be interpreted with indulgence; it should be reasonably interpreted as including everything it means fair. He went on to a real case to distinguish them: „strict constructionism“ is also used in American political discourse as an umbrella term for conservative legal philosophies such as originalism and textualism, which emphasize judicial restraint and fidelity to the original meaning of constitutions and laws. It is often used even more vaguely to describe any conservative judge or legal analyst.  This use is omnipresent, but in certain tension with the legal meaning of the term. For example, during the 2000 election campaign, when he talked about his election for the new Supreme Court justices, George W. Bush promised to appoint „strict constructivists in the form of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas,“ even though Thomas considers himself an originalist, and Scalia categorically rejected strict construction, calling it a „degraded form of textualism.“  The term has been used by conservative and moderate Republican presidents, beginning with Richard Nixon in 1968 when he ran for office.
[Citation needed] His promise was to appoint judges to interpret the law and restore „law and order“ to the judicial system. President Nixon appointed four judges who (at the time) seemed to conform to this philosophy. However, one of them, Harry Blackmun, moved to the left, while another, Lewis F. Powell, became moderate. The other two were in the form of what most think in terms of strict constructivists. Gerald Ford, when he ran for a full term, distanced himself from this issue. But Ronald Reagan also promised „strict constructivists.“ His three candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court easily fell into that category. Still, one was more originalist, while the other two were quite conservative. [Citation needed] Since Reagan, Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump, as well as Republican candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney, have all promised to appoint strictly constructivist judges to the courts. Constitutional scholar John Hart Ely believed that „strict constructionism“ is not really a philosophy of law or a theory of interpretation, but a coded label for popular court decisions with a particular political party.
 Strict interpretation is a form of judicial interpretation of a statute. The basic principle of this interpretation is that the text of a provision of a law must be applied as written (see also: legal construction). Such a form of construction is the opposite of liberal construction, in which the doctrine of relevance and fairness is applied while interpreting it to achieve the overarching purpose and intent of the law. 1Strestement outdated, today mainly used in legal language.2The Argentine and Uruguayan voseo prefers the form tú for the current subjunctive. Strict construction is the opposite of liberal construction, which allows a term to be evaluated in a reasonable and fair manner in order to implement the purpose and purpose of the document. An ongoing debate in U.S. law is about how judges should interpret the law. Proponents of a strict interpretation believe that judges must exercise restraint by refusing to expand the law by implication.
Critics of strict construction argue that this approach does not always lead to a fair or reasonable result. The use of the term strict construction in American politics is not new. The term was regularly used by members of the Democratic-Republican Party and Democrats during the pre-war period when they argued that the powers of the federal government listed in Article I should be interpreted strictly. They took this approach in the hope that it would ensure that most of the government`s power would remain in the hands of the states and would not be usurped by the federal government by new interpretations of their powers. [Citation needed] Perhaps the best-known example of this approach is Jefferson`s opinion, which opposes the constitutionality of a national bank. Since the vagueness of Article I inevitably suited broad and narrow interpretations, strict constructivists turned to the somewhat narrow descriptions of congressional powers offered by constitutional supporters upon ratification. Thus, politicians who identified themselves as strict constructivists took an approach to constitutional interpretation similar to what we now call originalism.  In law, strictly literal interpretations of laws can lead to the logical derivation of absurdities, and the doctrine of absurdity is that, in such cases, reasonable interpretations should be used rather than reading a law or the original intent literally. The doctrine of absurdity is a doctrine of legal theory, also known as the „Scrivener error exception“; in which U.S. courts have interpreted the laws against their clear meaning in order to avoid absurd legal conclusions.    It has been described as follows: Judges are often asked to construct or interpret an unclear term in cases involving a dispute over the legal meaning of the term. The common law tradition has given rise to various rules, maxims and rules that guide judges in the interpretation of laws or private written agreements such as contracts.
Strict construction occurs when ambiguous formulations receive their precise and technical meaning and no other just considerations or reasonable implication are made. In the United States, strict constructionism is a particular legal philosophy of legal interpretation that limits or restricts that interpretation only to the exact wording of the law (i.e. the Constitution). (narrow interpretation) n. Interpretation of the Constitution on the basis of a literal and narrow definition of language without reference to differences in the conditions of the Constitution and modern conditions, inventions and social changes. In contrast, „broad construction“ considers what someone considers to be the „intent“ of the authors` language, and broadly expands and interprets language to meet current norms of human behavior and the complexity of society. In criminal law, the application of strict interpretations is of the utmost importance, as they complement the leniency rule, which limits the scope of legal interpretation in criminal law. Therefore, where the wording of a determination is given a specific meaning without considering other reasonable implications, it is referred to as a strict interpretation. Accurate or careful reading and interpretation of a law or written document. A strict interpretation requires that a judge apply the text only as it is written. Once the court has a clear meaning of the text, no further investigation is required. From this point of view, judges should avoid drawing conclusions from a law or constitution and focus only on the text itself.
 Attorney Hugo Black (1886-1971) argued that the First Amendment order that Congress should not enact a law (against certain civil liberties) should be interpreted strictly: no law, blacks thought, allows for exceptions. However, „strict construction“ is not synonymous with textualism or originalism. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a prominent proponent of textualism, said that „no one should be a strict constructivist,“ even if a „non-textualist“ was preferred to a strict constructivist.  A judge can only make an interpretation if the wording is ambiguous or unclear. If the wording is clear and distinct, a judge must apply the simple meaning of the wording and cannot consider other evidence that would change the meaning. However, if the judge concludes that the words create absurdity, ambiguity or a literal regulation never intended, the simple meaning does not apply and a construction can be made. The term often contrasts with the term „legal activism,“ which is used to describe judges who attempt to legislate through court decisions. interpretar (first person singular indicative present interpreto, past partizip interpretáu).