Strict And Loose Interpretation

In my opinion to the question. That is if I think that the framers intended for a strict or loose interpretation of the Constitution. To first answer this question, we need to define what a strict and loose interpretation means. Without that, we would have little understanding of what the question is asking.

Strict interpretation means that the Constitution must explicitly grant a power or privilege in order for the action to be legal. Loose interpretation means that government can act relatively freely as long as the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit an action.

The problem with a loose interpretation is that it doesn't provide any safeguards against government intrusion on our liberty. What limits would there be? Our

Constitution is really a brilliant document - it's small, compact, and written in very plain language, unlike our legal code, making its contents accessible to anyone who can read. That's intentional. A loose interpretation completely negates that concept.
If we interpret the constitution loosely, that what is the point of having a written constitution, After all, is the constitution just a contract. An agreement between the government and its citizens? Contracts must be explicit, clear, and concise as to ensure all parties’ rights and requests are met and infringed upon.
If I was a member of the Supreme Court. I would approach it in a way I just explained. The great thing about the Constitution is that it is rigid and inflexible. Changes can be made to it. Although that is a difficult process. It allows both strict interpretation along with change if necessary.