Skip to comments.U.S. Supreme Court justice: 'Constitution is a static being'
Posted on 02/14/2012 9:08:50 AM PST by marktwainEdited on 02/14/2012 9:47:50 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday touted his approach to interpreting the federal Constitution that focuses on the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
Scalia, a former University of Chicago law professor, called the “originalism” method “the lesser evil.”
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Hear, hear, all ye for original intent! Original intent took aim at the motives of men, which have and will not change.
Further, USConstitution cannot be adequetely interpreted without referencing Declaration of Independence. The founders didn’t re-add the whole thing into USConstituion because it was _completely_ a given, understood, assumed.
Great swaths of the Old Testament are the same way not re-iterated... assumed, a given... duh.
Maybe there is a right to abortion, Scalia said, answering a question from one of the students. [The founders] didnt specify, but they didnt leave it up to the courts to do it either.
I think that’s the important quote.
Now if only Scalia would live up to it 100% of the time instead of something less than 100% he seems to so far.
The first part is correct; the second is a bunch of BS. The simple fact is that the Constitution IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. Period. Whether something else may be better or not is not for Scalia or anyone else to judge - the Constitution is to be obeyed, end of story.
Of course, what Scalia does understand well, and people like Breyer don't (or pretend not to - I'm not sure) is that there is a very well-known and utilized means of "updating" the Constitution via amendment. So it CAN change with the times, so long as a sufficient number of people agree to do so.
By the way, Breyer, I hope you had to buy some new underwear after that machete incident...and, much more importantly, that you can now understand part of the reason why the Founders decided to specifically protect the right to keep and bear arms...you putz.
Whether something else may be better or not is not for Scalia or anyone else to judge - the Constitution is to be obeyed, end of story.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Scalia gets an F. The founders (those present at the founding, i.e. the signing of the The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America stated
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
un·al·ien·a·ble: adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable.
The majority can ONLY exercise JUST power. Majorities can never justly violate unalienable rights or natural rights. A long train of usurpations of these rights legitimates forcible resistance.
This is the UNANIMOUS declaration. It is THE fundamental, foundational principle of this Country. Those who gainsay it should be heaped with derision and scorn for they invite violence, strife and evil to befall this great land.
Yet abortion was not absolutely illegal in the 13 states at the time, so there was, even then, difference of opinion, among the founders, as to when life, as they were referring to it in the Declaration of Independence, begins.
Scalia is as much as saying “the people”, in the states, have no federal mandate against your interpreation and in support of abortion - as Roe tries to say. Which is why he opposes Roe - there is no Constitutional mandate in favor of abortion.
During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, to "quicken" means "to reach the stage of pregnancy at which the child shows signs of life."
Even Jefferson knew slavery violated the principles of the Declaration. He said so in his original draft, although that specific language was deleted in conference.
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
But as Lincoln defended him writing:
All honor to Jefferson--to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.
Just because the principles of the Declaration have not always and everywhere been upheld doesn't demonstrate those principles were unintended or untrue.