| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Scalia reiterates: Constitution NOT a living document! |
| 2006-02-15 |
| Edited for brevity 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 [Puerto Rico]. 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. The favorite plan in the liberal playbook--the ol' end run around the legislature! |
| Posted by:Dar |
| #7 Eat shit SeeBS... Scalia runs rings around Breyer, Ginsberg and company. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-02-15 22:27 |
| #6 The 30s may have been a backdown by the Court in the face of Roosevelt's threat, but the 60s witness the assumption of powers by the Court beyond anything the original writers of the Constitution envisioned. |
| Posted by: Groting Gravise7558 2006-02-15 11:41 |
| #5 This problem did not start in the '60s. Like most problems that are ascribed to the '60s, its origins lie in the New Deal of the '30s. This one relates directly to the switch in time that saved 9 when the Supreme Court backed down from upholding the Constitution against Roosevelt. But slowly the damage of the ND is being undone. This is one important step. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-15 10:11 |
| #4 Face it. It is an autocracy with a ‘Potemkin village’ frontage of democracy. Not only do a handful of individuals dictate daily what the law is, they all come from a very small select community. One entire branch of government is reserved for them and only them. Do you see anywhere in the Constitution as printed that only lawyers and judges can become a Supreme Court Justice. Ah, but it is so technical. 1 - they make technical. 2 - Use the same rational for qualification for Commander-in-Chief, particularly during time of war and that aught to limited the candidates for President the next time around. However, remember its all about power so expect no consistancy on qualifications for key positions in the government. The Judiciary has accumulated vast powers and prerogatives through decree since the 60s. Its no longer a question of just putting the ‘right’ people into place anymore. The Genie is not going back into the bottle except in your wildest dreams. The legislative branch has been AWOL in the exercise of its authority and powers to oversee the rouge behavior of the third branch. The only way to recover the power is to place the entire branch in a position of deriving their powers from the direct consent of the governed. However, in one form or another both the pols and the too many of the people prefer a king. “See, not my fault, I was told I had to do it.” |
| Posted by: Groting Gravise7558 2006-02-15 09:54 |
| #3 If the rules change based on the whim of a handful of people, you don't have a just society -- you have autocratic rule by that handful of people. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-02-15 06:13 |
| #2 I used to believe in a living constitution but somewhere along the line I realized the founders put the ability to change the constitution in there for a reason. You can't just reinterprut something, if it doesn't agree get the people behind you and change it. Takes a lot of people though doesn't it. Easier to just get some judges in the right position. Living Constitution is a farce. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-02-15 01:00 |
| #1 But, but what about the March of Progress |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-15 00:53 |