Justice Scalia bashes "Living Constitution"


PDA






progunner1957
February 14, 2006, 01:13 PM
In a speech Monday, Justice Anton Scalia bashed the liberal/leftist/progressive/socialist holy grail, the "Living Constitution."

This is a huge victory for those who believe America should abide by the original text and meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights rather than selectively chop, alter and manipulate the document to produce a given (liberal/leftist/progressive/socialist) outcome.

THANK YOU, Justice Scalia!! You would make The Founders proud!


Scalia Dismisses 'Living Constitution'
By JONATHAN EWING, Associated Press Writer

People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.

In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution "as it was originally written and intended."

"Scalia does have a philosophy, it's called originalism," he said. "That's what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do," he told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory.

According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.

Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."

"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court."

"They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said.

Scalia was invited to Puerto Rico by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. The organization was founded in 1982 as a debating society by students who believed professors at the top law schools were too liberal. Conservatives and libertarians mainly make up the 35,000 members.

If you enjoyed reading about "Justice Scalia bashes "Living Constitution"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Headless Thompson Gunner
February 14, 2006, 01:17 PM
:D It's good to know that at least one of the judges gets it.

Next time there's an openig on the court, can we just clone Scalia and appoint another one of him?

progunner1957
February 14, 2006, 01:23 PM
They all get it, they're not stupid - some of them do the right thing, some do what advances their personal agenda.

Henry Bowman
February 14, 2006, 04:27 PM
Next time there's an openig on the court, can we just clone Scalia and appoint another one of him?If the leftists insist on "diversity," we can cross clone him with Thomas.

kwelz
February 14, 2006, 04:31 PM
WOOHOO this means we can have slaves again right. And we don't have to worry about those pesky women folk messing up our elections anymore.

Hmm Wait. No. That doesn't work.

While I agree on some levels that the Constitution was written for all time, there are some parts of it where they messed up or had to make compromises that need to be amended later.

Helmetcase
February 14, 2006, 04:33 PM
While I agree on some levels that the Constitution was written for all time, there are some parts of it where they messed up or had to make compromises that need to be amended later.
We already have a thread on this...

But that did make think of a good rebuttal--if the Constitution wasn't supposed to be able to flex as society evolved, why did the framers include various means of redress and methods to change it? They knew it would be relevant for all time if it was able to be flexed--not bent in half mind you, but molded gradually.

kwelz
February 14, 2006, 04:40 PM
We already have a thread on this...

But that did make think of a good rebuttal--if the Constitution wasn't supposed to be able to flex as society evolved, why did the framers include various means of redress and methods to change it? They knew it would be relevant for all time if it was able to be flexed--not bent in half mind you, but molded gradually.

Exactly. That is why it is so hard to change it. You don't want a document this important to be changed on a whim. But at the same time it will become stagnant after hundreds of years. You can tweak it without changing the underlying ideals.

bumm
February 14, 2006, 04:40 PM
Azizza was saying
>While I agree on some levels that the Constitution
> was written for all time, there are some parts of
> it where they messed up or had to make
> compromises that need to be amended later.

The framers of the constitution knew they weren't perfect, and that's why they devised specific ways that the constitution could be amended. However, a constitution, or any other legal document, that can be interpreted strictly on the fashion of the day is completely worthless.
Marty

roscoe
February 14, 2006, 06:08 PM
Scalia is no defender of gun rights - and he is strong a supporter of governmental authority. Don't hang your hat on him!

Bartholomew Roberts
February 14, 2006, 08:33 PM
Duplicate.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=183049

If you enjoyed reading about "Justice Scalia bashes "Living Constitution"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!