Posted on 01/10/2011 4:58:55 AM PST by MsLady
January 4, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a recent interview with California Lawyer, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated that abortion is not included in the U.S. Constitution.
Scalia, who is opposed to the notion of an “evolving” or “living” Constitution, told interviewer Calvin Massey that by giving some of the “necessarily broad” provisions of the Constitution an “evolving meaning,” these provisions fail to do their job, which is to put in place limitations on what society can or cannot do.
Even if “the current society has come to different views [than the original framers],” he said, “you do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society.”
Instead, he said, when something isn’t found in the Constitution, it should be taken up by legislators. One of the examples that he used to illustrate this point was abortion.
“You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law.
“That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.”
While Scalia said that sometimes Constitutional interpretation can be difficult, especially when the intent of the original framers isn’t clear, he said that some issues are abundantly clear, such as whether or not there is a constitutional right to abortion.
“I do not pretend that originalism is perfect,” he said. “There are some questions you have no easy answer to, and you have to take your best shot.
“We don’t have the answer to everything, but by God we have an answer to a lot of stuff ... especially the most controversial: whether the death penalty is unconstitutional, whether there’s a constitutional right to abortion, to suicide, and I could go on.”
The 74-year-old jurist, who was appointed to the high court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, made similar remarks in November, when he told those present at a University of Richmond luncheon that the idea of a living Constitution has allowed “five out of nine hotshot lawyers to run the country.”
At the time Scalia said 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.” That, he said, has allowed the 14th Amendment to become the gateway to legal abortion and other behaviors, which the constitutional authors never intended and viewed as criminal.
A standard that changes with time is by definition no standard at all. It merely serves as a convenient endorsement for whatever caprice rules at the moment. A “living Constitution” destroys the culutral, ideological, and legal continuity that are this country’s mortar.
Scalia gets it. I have zero doubt he’d follow the law if the constitution was properly amended. That is the only way to have an orderly society that is governed by the rule of law and protects the rights of all citizens. The US Constitution is a contract between We the People and government. Our political leaders have learned it is far easier to ignore the contract provisions than to follow the proper procedures for amending them. Even as they swear to uphold and defend the constitution, they work to pervert it.
Hope and pray that a Republican becomes President next time around because I suspect that there will have to be more appointments to the bench in that tenure.
Our Freedoms hang on a 5/4 split.
Ironclad rules with strict means of amendment
completely disempower the elitist types who derive their power from the unequal enforcement and application of law.
That’s why they hate it.
Hmmm.
Its either banned by the Fifth Amendment (”...nor be deprived of life, ... without due process of law”) or permitted by the Tenth Amendment (”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”)
Common sense, sadly lacking in the world today, would go with the Fifth.
Maybe the abortion activists ought to send all the women across state lines for their abortions so the liberal judges could call it interstate commerce.
And you know how far liberal jurists have expanded the definition of interstate commerce to expand control using the ‘growing document’ theory of the Constitution
I know what your talking about. There is no common sense anymore. Seems like whatever these lefties want they can twist things until it means what they want it to mean.
In the Preamble, it says "...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
I suggested that the "Blessings of Liberty" refers to rights granted from God (Blessings and Liberty being capitalized, and Liberty being one of three capitalized rights from the Declaration from our Creator), and "secure... our posterity" means for our children and their children.
I point this out because it was the practice to capitalize all references to God, such as "Him" and "Creator." Following this practice, the gifts of the Creator, namely Rights to Life, Liberty, and Happiness, are capitalized, too. Furthermore, in the preamble to the Constitution, the word Blessings is also capitalized, which I take to mean from the Creator, and Liberty is also capitalized, which is one of the three rights from the Creator mentioned in the Declaration. All this, taken together, tells me that the Founders intended the Constitution to protect the Blessings of the unalienable rights that come from the Creator, and not just to us but to our children and their children.
How can we "secure" "Blessings" for "our posterity" if we allow "our posterity" to be aborted?
-PJ
I should have made the point, that, if abortion is permitted by the 10th Amendment, then its an issue for the States and the People, and not Federales.
That is, individual states could ban or permit abortion as their legislatures saw fit.
Ping!
EXCELLENT, and what else would or could it mean, other than what you say.
posterity: noun
1. succeeding or future generations collectively: Judgment of this age must be left to posterity.
2. all descendants of one person: His fortune was gradually dissipated by his posterity.
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.