In the Orwellian world of liberalism one is controversial because liberals complain about someone and then complain that he is controversial because he is complained against
Posted on 11/15/2008 8:28:40 AM PST by WestTexasWend
One of the most controversial justices on the U.S. Supreme Court is sometimes at controversy with himself.
Justice Antonin Scalia explained to a large crowd Friday at the Lubbock Memorial Civic Center Exhibit Hall how his ardent belief in the quest to interpret the Constitution as its writers intended sometimes puts him at odds with his own personal beliefs.
Scalia illustrated his conundrum by pointing to his vote upholding flag burning as a protected means of free speech.
"You have a right to express contempt for the country, for the flag, for the government, for the president, for the Supreme Court," he said.
Long referred to as a strict constructionist, Scalia lectured for 35 minutes about "originalism" as the featured speaker in the Sandra Day O'Connor Distinguished Lecture Series.
Originalism is the belief that the Constitution is not a fluid, "living document" designed to ebb and flow with societal currents, but rather a grounded legal document that has the same meaning now as it did when it was written.
Scalia is second in seniority among associate justices on the high court.
He was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 when Justice William Rehnquist was promoted to chief justice.
The U.S. Supreme Court Web site describes Scalia as one of the court's most colorful jurists, and in his introduction of Scalia on Friday, fabled attorney and law professor Arthur Miller touched on the justice's character.
Miller described Scalia as colorful, controversial, combative and conservative.
He said if the Supreme Court justices were birds on a wire, eight of them would be gray birds and one would be a colorful parrot - talking loudly. The parrot, needless to say, would be Scalia.
Scalia is well known for his philosophy of judicial restraint and limited constitutional interpretation, and Friday's lecture on those topics solidified his position to the Lubbock crowd.
Through a series of quips and one-liners, Scalia made his case for jurisprudence based on the founding fathers' original intent.
The high court justice posited the standard arguments against originalism before assailing them in sardonic humor.
Many people argue the Constitution must grow with the changing times or it will become brittle, Scalia said. "If you believe that, you'd probably believe your stock broker when he says the market is resting for an assault on the 1,100 mark," he said.
Scalia also stressed that constitutional originalism versus evolutionism is not a battle of conservative versus liberal ideologies and that "unconstitutional" should never be a catchall for "stupid," yet legal laws.
He went on to say every federal judge should have a rubber stamp that says "stupid, but constitutional."
Scalia wrapped up his lecture with his thoughts on whether the Supreme Court would continue to evolve into a "mini constitutional convention" every time a new justice is selected as originalism becomes less and less orthodox.
"I'm not much of an optimist," he said. "When you're a pessimist, you're never disappointed."
He forgets that many of us took an “Oath” to protect that flag. We also have the right as Americans to stop the burning of our Nations flag. It goes two ways if this is his belief.
In the Orwellian world of liberalism one is controversial because liberals complain about someone and then complain that he is controversial because he is complained against
Scalia would respond in two ways: first, that the idea that "many of us" instead of "all of us" is itself probably unconstitutional, and (again, probably) being unfamiliar with the "Oath" you've taken, ask to see the text.
We need to get away from playing with words. All it does is dilute what should be done.
Telling a strict constructionist that he needs to get away from playing with words is like telling a chef to get away from playing with food.
So if you were an armed National Guardsman at Kent State University and your commander ordered you to kill protesters because they were burning a flag, you would do so?
How does that apply to the Constitution and Scalia’s remarks?
It’s not even that, really . . . unless someone explains otherwise (meaning that I may be incorrect but I don’t think I am), servicemembers do not take an oath to defend the flag. Literally, they take an oath to defend the Constitution. Using “U.S. flag” as a symbol for “U.S. Constitution” (literally) opens a whole in the argument that someone like Scalia can pilot a freighter through.
Here' what I found:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
I thought that the term was "lawful orders", but the meaning is clear.
I think we can all agree that there is no "flag burning" language in the Constitution.
Now, if it was a copy of the Constitution made into a flag that might be another story . . . but I prefer to discuss legal details in the morning over coffee, as opposed to during the evening over beer.
He should have added that, - 'You do not however, - have a right to work for the overthrow of our constitution, or of our Republican Form of Government'..
The basic principles of our constitution are not amendable.. Our rights to life, liberty and property shall not be infringed.
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.