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 ...
"Greenberg obviously is an idiot!"
No, he's a self-serving mealy mouthed hypocrit. His concern for the anger level in the discourse only manifestes itself when the right fires back.
Back in the 70's and since then anyone who disagreed in any way with a liberal was a "nazi" among many other things.
Suck it up, Paulie.
I wonder what these people that call the constitution a "living document" would say if their bank decided that their mortgage was a "living document".
I have never had a substantive reply, when arguing with a anti-gun nut, when I say that journalists should have to license their keyboards and typewriters, no one could have forseen the invention of these dangerous devices. They should only be allowed to write by longhand, or use an old style printing press.....unless of course they want to be severely regulated.
O'Connor was actually more constructionist than Scalia in that case, although Thomas (in dissenting like O'Connor) said it best:
If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Given that the Bill of Rights is meant to limit the national government, I don't go along with this. IMHO, each state is a separate poliitical community and ought to be free to make its rule of safety and comity. If you don't like the gun laws of New York. move to Texas.
In a diverse society, where its diversity is emphasized over its foundational roots, it is inevitable that there arise conflicts about whose moral code is to be adhered to.
Nevertheless, a society without a moral compass will eventually lose its heading.
Nations set themselves adrift when they have no steadfast point of reference.
A people who decide what is right or wrong solely on relative positions are like the nearsighted navigator who always finds them self on course by focusing on the twinkle just over the horizon.
They never realize that the twinkle is the captain’s lamp at the other end of the ship, steering them only to the course they’ve already predetermined.
As usual, Scalia is right.
Greenberg's got it wrong, easy for an idiot. The opposite of a "living" Constitution is a respected one.
Yeah! Let's require them all to be registered with the local law enforcement agency!
Just what are you trying to say, newbie (suspected troll)?
"People who say that the Constitution is a Living Document ARE idiots."
They're also called liberals, the same people who feel similarly towards the ten commandments.
"Most restrictions are state imposed, and it is harder to argue that states have no right to regulate the use of guns."
Hunting is not protected in the constitution....GUNS ARE!
the second amendment is about protection from tyranny from within and without of our nation. -- ".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed......"
39 Vaquero
RobbyS:
Given that the Bill of Rights is meant to limit the national government, I don't go along with this.
IMHO, each state is a separate poliitical community and ought to be free to make its rule of safety and comity. If you don't like the gun laws of New York. move to Texas.
Robby, - I moved to CA 50 years ago when it had reasonable laws on regulating firearms..-- Now the 'moral majority' in this state is outright prohibiting guns. Under your theory, my only recourse is to move? -- Say it isn't so kid. -- Tell us that our RKBA's is an inalienable right.
Not under CA's constitution. You should go ahead and move. All that conservatives serve for in CA is to swell it's population so that the commielibs get 53 electoral votes every four years.
Regulating is not banning. New York can no more Constitutionally ban firearms than they can reinstitute slavery.
"Shall not be infringed" is the "Supreme law of the Land". If you don't like that little fact, then there are other Countries you can move to.
I don't think you can separate the idea of gun ownership from the notion of the militia as an organized force capable of resisting say, the standing force of government. I will agree that if the practical effect of gun laws is to disarm the people, then it must be resisted. So, following Justice Storey, I think, I regard the possession of guns as a popular rather than an individual right. Hard to enforce this right in as court, however, since a court is an arm of government.
Sorry, but they can. Life, liberty and property can be taken away by due process of law.
Removal of Rights as part of a criminal trial's punishments are one thing. A priori restraint of an individual's liberty is something quite else. The first is permitted, the second is verbotten.
Cool yer jets, oh decomposing one. I agree with it being the law of the land. I was just relaying that CA has no state constitutional protections of the RKBA.
There is no need for them to have one. As California is a member of the US, it's citizens are due the "privilages and immunities" of us all. The only Constitutional way it could impose a gun ban, restore slavery, or appoint a King, would be if it succeeded from the Union.
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.