Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Constitution: Dead or alive?
The Washington Times ^ | 2-27-06 | Paul Greenberg

Posted on 02/27/2006 12:16:31 PM PST by JZelle

He's ba-a-a-ck. Not that he ever really goes away. After all, he has life tenure. This time the Hon. Antonin Scalia was calling those of us who think of the Constitution of the United States as a living document "idiots." No, this wasn't Ann Coulter doing her stand-up routine, but rather an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Welcome to civil discourse, 21st century-style. A decent respect for those who hold to a different philosophy of law, or of anything else, now seems to have gone the way of powdered wigs, dress swords and chivalry in general. This time Justice Scalia was caught talking out of school, or rather his courtroom, at a meeting of the Federalist Society down in Puerto Rico -- although his formal opinions are scarcely more temperate. His subject on this occasion: The idea of a living Constitution and why it's wrong, wrong, wrong. Mr. Justice Scalia summed up the idea before dismissing it as idiotic. "That's the argument of flexibility," he explained, "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."

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: antoninscalia; constitution; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

1 posted on 02/27/2006 12:16:33 PM PST by JZelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JZelle
When someone says that the Constitution is a "living documents", what they really mean is that it is dead.
2 posted on 02/27/2006 12:19:19 PM PST by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

God help me, but I detest, despise and hate this leftist filth.


3 posted on 02/27/2006 12:20:25 PM PST by butternut_squash_bisque (Borders, Language, Culture™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Scalia is right. The "living Constitution" crowd reminds me of the "Spirit of Vatican II" crowd. What is in writing does not support their aims, so they talk endlessly about the "spirit" of the words.
4 posted on 02/27/2006 12:20:26 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

Of course the Constitution can evolve as times and society change. That's exactly what the Amendment process is for.


5 posted on 02/27/2006 12:20:59 PM PST by SmithL (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

Greenberg obviously is an idiot!


6 posted on 02/27/2006 12:22:28 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (MAY I DIE ON MY FEET IN MY SWAMP, BUAIDH NO BAS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
This time the Hon. Antonin Scalia was calling those of us who think of the Constitution of the United States as a living document "idiots."

Waaaahhh! He called us a name!

I would imagine being called an idiot is a relatively common event in the world of Paul Greenberg.

Living things radically transform even when the only variable is time. The Constitution changes when you follow the proscribed and rigorous procedures designed to alter the document. It doesn't age or mature or learn or grow on its own.

7 posted on 02/27/2006 12:23:24 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

People who say that the Constitution is a Living Document ARE idiots.


8 posted on 02/27/2006 12:23:36 PM PST by Leatherneck_MT (An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
When someone says that the Constitution is a "living documents", what they really mean is that it is dead

What the democRATS mean is "lets meld it into something that we can use to get our socialist agenda passed"

9 posted on 02/27/2006 12:24:34 PM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

Exactly!


10 posted on 02/27/2006 12:24:54 PM PST by stainlessbanner (I miss Mayberry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
" . . . so they talk endlessly about the "spirit" of the words."

Except regarding the 2nd Amendment, where they reject not only the spirit, but also the letter of the law.
11 posted on 02/27/2006 12:25:03 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
The Constitution of the United States is a masterwork of the plastic art of jurisprudence, subject to different interpretations at different times.

According to Greenberg, they might just as well have written the document on a chalkboard.

12 posted on 02/27/2006 12:27:01 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Paul Greenberg is a nationally syndicated columnist communist.

What's that old saying?

It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear to be an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

13 posted on 02/27/2006 12:27:06 PM PST by DrNo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

I wonder if we inform Mr. Greenberg that his home mortgage is a living document which can be increased to reflect current realities in the mortgage market would he think us an idiot. What is it with liberals that they cannot understand contract law?


14 posted on 02/27/2006 12:27:28 PM PST by tigtog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
The 2nd Amendment is an embarrassment, because it cannot be explained away.
15 posted on 02/27/2006 12:28:36 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

I disagree, it has been explained away very well. To the point where it is only relevant today.


16 posted on 02/27/2006 12:33:40 PM PST by JusticeForAll76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

"Of course the Constitution can evolve as times and society change. That's exactly what the Amendment process is for."
But, that would take too much time and a majority of American citizens to support their socialist changes.


17 posted on 02/27/2006 12:38:57 PM PST by griswold3 (Ken Blackwell, Ohio Governor in 2006- No!! You cannot have my governor in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Antonin Scalia is so smart that almost everyone he meets must appear to be an idiot. I saw him on C-SPAN a few days ago and in the Q & A part he was easily making mincemeat of his questioners.

Paul Greenberg is a good guy--in fact I think he's the one who first tagged Bill Clinton with the "Slick Willie" nickname. He was writing columns denouncing Clinton back when most people had barely heard of Clinton. But nobody's right all the time.

18 posted on 02/27/2006 12:39:13 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle


So the Constitution should live and breath with the times?

Okay, I think Journalists have WAY TOO MUCH freedom when it comes to printing stupid articles like this one. I say we ban the publications of stuff like this.

Freedom of the Press is an ancient idea 200 years dead anyway....


19 posted on 02/27/2006 12:40:06 PM PST by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JusticeForAll76

You need to compare the situation today with that in Europe. Federal guns laws bearely touch on the right. In Europe it is rare to find guns in the hands of private persons. Hunting in Germany, for instance, is much more tightly controlled than here in the states. If it much more difficult to hunt here than it used to be, it is because the scarcity of places to hunt has made it a sport for the well-to-do. Most restrictions are state imposed, and it is harder to argue that states have no right to regulate the use of guns.


20 posted on 02/27/2006 12:43:05 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson