Final answer:
A strict constructionist interprets the Constitution closely to its original text and framers' intent, while a loose constructionist permits a broader interpretation to fit modern contexts. The lines can blur, as demonstrated by a Supreme Court case in 1995 which exhibited traits of both strict constructionism and judicial activism.
Step-by-step explanation:
The difference between a loose constructionist and a strict constructionist is based on how they interpret the U.S. Constitution. A strict constructionist believes that the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with what was originally written and understood by the framers; they tend to adhere to the literal text of the document. On the other hand, a loose constructionist supports a broader reading of the Constitution, allowing for interpretations that go beyond the exact wording, in order to adapt to modern circumstances.
For example, in the 1995 Supreme Court ruling that struck down the Gun-Free School Zone Act, the conservative majority exhibited strict constructionism by limiting Congress's power under the commerce clause to what they believed the framers intended. However, this also could be seen as an example of judicial activism, as the Court actively curtailed Congressional power. While it seems contradictory, this demonstrates that one can exhibit qualities of both strict constructionism and judicial activism, depending on the case and viewpoint, thus blurring the lines between these concepts.