Justice Scalia slams high court for inventing ‘living constitution,’ right to abortion

LifeSiteNews ^ | 11/23/10 | Peter Smith

[WashingtonSource]

bump

[armordog99]

I generally believe that the constitution is not a living document. If the American people want something changed they should pass an amendment. However, I believe that what two or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their own business. If my wife and I want to engage in sodomy in our home I don't believe it is the governments business, federal, state, or local. I am sure though that most of the founding fathers would believe sodomy is wrong. Except maybe Ben Franklin.(Ha-Ha).

[at bay]

So live in a state where that’s legal. Don’t expect that the Constitution has language that protects your every depraved thought. Or get busy with the amendment process.

[yldstrk]

I am with you Justice, watch your back, man.

[MileHi]

bflr

[armordog99]

That’s the thing though, I don’t see anything in the U.S. Constitution that allows the federal government to legislate what grown adults do sexually in the privacy of their own home. I speak here only of the federal constitution because we are talking about justice scalia. Remember the U.S. constitution for the most part outlines what the federal government can and cannot do. It does not outline everything a citizen can or cannot do.

[Talisker]

Scalia pointed out that the high court distorted the meaning of “due process” (referring to legal procedure) in the 14th Amendment to invent new rights under a “made up” concept of “substantial due process.” ..."The due process clause has been distorted so it’s no longer a guarantee of process but a guarantee of liberty,” Scalia expounded.

Wow, somewhat well done, Justice Scalia.

Now just address the substitution of due process as a right, for substantial due process as a privilege, and you've said something that can actually change things.

[Ken H]

Justice Scalia, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, are the high court's two jurists that firmly embrace an "originalist" doctrine - abiding by the original intent and context of legal language - when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution and federal laws.

Not when it comes to the Commerce Clause:

______________________________________

...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

Justice Scalia

______________________________________

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. 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.

Justice Thomas

______________________________________

Which is the originalist position, and which is the elastic position?

[shield]

I do not blame him for being angry....

[guitarist]

Scalia’s critique of Roe and similar cases is spot on. No argument.

But add to that: Since when is it okay, as in abortion, to tear a little baby girl or boy apart limb from limb? Any politician who can’t see that this should be illegal is going to have to remain suspect, even though they may be clever on other issues...

[RnMomof7]

Amen

[Sola Veritas]

“Justice Scalia, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, are the high court’s two jurists that firmly embrace an “originalist” doctrine - abiding by the original intent and context of legal language - when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution and federal laws.”

I fully concurr with them. The Constitution MUST be interpreted in light of what its original intent was. If an issue comes up that is not specifically addressed in the constitution, it is spitting on the Constitution to illrationally or illogically extrapolate beyond what the original intent of the document was. Roe vs. Wade was a terrible abuse of the intent of the Constitution.

When matters are not, within logical reason, addressed in the Constitution, then the courts must defer the matter to States to decide or for the constitution to be ammended. States should never have been forced to accept abortion as a constitutional right....or whatever convoluted reasoning that Roe came up with.