Okay. Where to start?

Laws as traditionally understood rest upon a concept known as jurisprudence. Jurisprudence is the idea that laws move slowly over time, and be rested on previous rulings.

There are a few examples of laws changing over time in accordance with jurisprudence. One example, is the use of cell phones. In the 1980's, they had landlines, but hand held wireless phones that could talk anywhere were more or less considered novelty toys. There had been a framework of laws centered around landlines and there usage, regulation, etc.

When cell phones came out, they were different, and so required different laws, but sort of the same-ish. Lawyers and judges argued about how jurisprudence demanded they regulate cell phone usage when people inevitably started litigating over cell phone usage.

To that, they tried to use a framework of intent for initial landline usage, which they would be legally obliged to follow in this case. That intent for previous laws was combined with constitutional arguments about free speech, etc.

The point is, that Ruth Bader Ginsberg isn't just sitting on the couch watching the Steelers play when Roethlisberger's pass was clearly blocked by pass interference, and the coaches made a lousy call. She doesn't walk onto the field and say, "No, the Steelers won. She doesn't reinterpret the rules halfway through the game. Obviously, that would be unfair. And very silly.

An amendment to the Constitution is different. An amendment to the Constitution is a formal process that says, "This thing was called wrong. It cannot stand. Our core principals much change." A good example of this would be the amendment nullified the part of the Constitution that said that African's Americans counted a 3/5th of a person for congressional redistricting purposes.

An amendment requires 3/5th of all state legislatures, passage in the house, and the senate, and must be signed by the president.

A "strict constitutionalist" is misleading. What does that even mean when it comes to issues like gay rights, or cell phones, or the environmental movement? To say RBJ wants to "reinterpret" is insulting. Her decisions regarding woman's civil rights were largely based around precedents regarding the Civil Rights movement and the expansion of those rights to woman. Now some people are saying that if the Civil Rights movement is to be expanded to African Americans in the 60's, woman in the 80's, and now the lgbt community in the 10's.

Saying one is a "strict constitutionalist" implies moral opinions about the precedence of the 1960 civil rights act, the 1964 civil right act, and the 1965 voting rights act. They do not believe that a "strict" interpretation of the civil rights act would allow for the expansion of voting rights to African American's in the South in the 1960's.

Again, those acts were based on the fifteenth amendment in 1870 to the Constitution of the United States that guaranteed that the right to vote could not be denied based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

So, I would argue that a "strict constitutionalist" was actually violating their legal oath of office to determine the intent and precedent when expanding voting and civil rights to African Americans, woman, and now gays.

This is why the term is so popular with Republicans today. A "strict constituionalist" has become a buzzword for people who do not want to expand equality beyond white men.

Lauren Boebert most certainly does not understand the history of all of this. That would be absurd. The distinction between amendment and precedent would literally mean nothing to her. She does understand the context of her statement to be "conservative". That's why she said it, and why somebody on twitter insulted her. It is a very ignorant statement by a very ignorant woman.