Skip to comments.Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'
Posted on 03/15/2014 3:01:41 AM PDT by markomalley
During a speech in Atlanta Friday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Friday defended interpreting the Constitution as it was originally written and intended.
Scalia delivered a speech titled "Interpreting the Constitution: A View From the High Court," as part of a constitutional symposium hosted by the State Bar of Georgia. Originalism and trying to figure out precisely what the ratified document means is the only option, otherwise you're just telling judges to govern, Scalia argued.
"The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Calling chief roberts.....chief roberts.....hello? chief roberts. Oh it’s not 3 am?
According to “progressives”, the Constitution is a living document, but Wickard v. Filburn and Roe v. Wade are “settled law”.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that
a law repugnant to the Constitution is void,
and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The Constitution: “it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”
Here, Here! Our founding fathers were extremely smart men and knew exactly what they were penning when they wrote the Constitution. And to further clarify what they had written in the Constitution, they added the Bill of Rights stating:
“The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”
Pay particular attention to the phrase “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the governments) powers”.
It used to be a living document. Now it’s just a dead letter.
“The Constitution: it says what it says and doesnt say what it doesnt say......
Finally, a judge that can READ!
>Pity most of the other justices don’t feel that way.
Neither does Justice Scalia or he would be opining and voting to completely overturn Wickard v Filburn (1942) instead of just nibbling at it here and there.
But that would revive pre-Prohibition jurisprudence on the interstate commerce clause and make the federal War on Drugs as unconstitutional and futile as the War on Alcohol was before the 18th Amendment.
Scalia would never do that and besides, he’d be outvoted by the liberals and other so-called conservatives on the Court 7-2 (with Justice Thomas).
The only people who insist that the Constitution is a “living document” are those who don’t like what it says.
Am I correct in assuming that would be 99.9% of rats and RINOs?
I would stretch the Constitution far enough to argue that "freedom of the press" includes publishing on the Internet, which is merely a different technology for publishing. Similarly, I would argue that "unreasonable search and seizure" includes infrared and radar searches through walls and electronic searches of email and other Internet communications. The point though is that we should read the Constitution broadly and maintain all the individual protections in the Constitution with their literal original meanings, applied verbatim but encompassing functionally equivalent substitute and replacement technologies.
There is no penumbra and no right to privacy (other than in the 9th and 10th Amendments), but the Second Amendment is an absolute right to keep and bear arms (including handheld arms developed after 1791) and that right shall not be infringed regardless of the sensibilities of what may become the majority.
“Constitution is a living organism...”
IMO the rats have always believed this. I remember when Gore was VP, he said pretty much the same: ‘The Constitution is a living document’.
The instant the constitution becomes a living document is the moment that it is mortally wounded.
Nice to hear a Supreme say it, but a shame it’s “news” when one does. It’s just common sense, and true to what the founders said, did, and intended.
As to the “living document” of politicians, that’s true as well - from THEIR seats in government. They have the ability and power, through a defined process, to amend the constitution. But ONLY when they can get enough support from both houses, and a signature from a sitting president.
I’ve always been appalled how the Dems just want to waive their hands, and “interpret” new law and new rights into being through what is, effectively, mob rule. Equally bad is their history of abridging existing rights in the same way (2nd Amendment anyone?).
Every Congress critter should have a copy of the Constitution on their desk. Upon introduction of any bill they should be required to show where in the Constitution it is the federal government’s job. If they can’t find it then vote no on the bill.
But that would revive pre-Prohibition jurisprudence on the interstate commerce clause
There are a lot of Scalia and Thomas dissents referencing the absurd wrongheadedness of the current understanding of the commerce clause.
They should have shot Wickard, and sent Filburn to Congress.
Of course it is not. If it was, the left would argue for your right to "marry" it. Proof positive of the above statement.
Yes so listen up all of you Article Fiver’s. The Constitution is fine stop trying to ammend it.
Of course it is not. If it was, the left would argue for your right to “marry” it.
Or abort it.
(a) Who is a citizen?
(b) What is a Natural Born Citizen?
(c) Was The Mombasa MF then, and are Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal eligible to run for POTUS now?
What? I gotta draw youse a map?
Excellent, excellent, excellent.
Your stretches are not stretches at all. The founding fathers wanted to protect our freedoms. New technology does not create loopholes in those freedoms; it creates expansions of them.
I would add that as far as the 2d amendment goes, the citizens right to keep and bear arms should include anything that the government might have in its arsenal. Part of the purpose of that amendment is so that I can protect myself from the government. We should not cower in fear at the superior weaponry available to the government. And yes, I would not be too keen on my next door neighbor building a nuke. I haven’t quite thought that through. But since we are nowhere near that point, I figure I have some time to mull it over.
It all makes sense now...