Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'
Fox News ^ | 3/15/2014

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS:
Pity most of the other justices don't feel that way.
1 posted on 03/15/2014 3:01:41 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Calling chief roberts.....chief roberts.....hello? chief roberts. Oh it’s not 3 am?


2 posted on 03/15/2014 3:09:54 AM PDT by ronnie raygun (Zippy the a##clown sez..............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

According to “progressives”, the Constitution is a living document, but Wickard v. Filburn and Roe v. Wade are “settled law”.


3 posted on 03/15/2014 3:12:05 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oblomov
Something to remember:

Marbury v. Madison 1803, vol 5, pg 137

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.

emphasis added

4 posted on 03/15/2014 3:23:48 AM PDT by SERE_DOC ( “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” TJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

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”.


5 posted on 03/15/2014 3:39:37 AM PDT by ImNotLying (The Right To Bear Arms: Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

It used to be a living document. Now it’s just a dead letter.


6 posted on 03/15/2014 4:11:48 AM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

“The Constitution: “it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”.....

Finally, a judge that can READ!


7 posted on 03/15/2014 4:12:52 AM PDT by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; oblomov

>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).


8 posted on 03/15/2014 4:28:04 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (HELL, NO! BE UNGOVERNABLE! --- ISLAM DELENDA EST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The only people who insist that the Constitution is a “living document” are those who don’t like what it says.


9 posted on 03/15/2014 4:46:13 AM PDT by MNnice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNnice
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?

10 posted on 03/15/2014 5:22:07 AM PDT by Mark17 (Chicago Blackhawks: Stanley Cup champions 2010, 2013. Vietnam Vet 70-71 Msgt US Air Force, retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
I suspect on FR this will have nearly universal approval.

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.

11 posted on 03/15/2014 5:32:51 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

“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’.


12 posted on 03/15/2014 5:45:36 AM PDT by duckman (I'm part of the group pulling the wagon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The instant the constitution becomes a living document is the moment that it is mortally wounded.


13 posted on 03/15/2014 6:27:14 AM PDT by VRW Conspirator ( 2+2 = V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

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?).


14 posted on 03/15/2014 6:41:58 AM PDT by Be Free (I believe in gun control. The more people that control their own guns, the safer we'll all be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

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.


15 posted on 03/15/2014 7:00:37 AM PDT by rfreedom4u (Your feelings don't trump my free speech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: duckman
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’.

No, Gore said:

(first grade teacher voice)
"Thuh.........Constuhtution
*Pause*
*More pause*
Is.
uhhhhhhhhhh
Living document."
(/first grade teacher voice)

;-)
16 posted on 03/15/2014 7:18:46 AM PDT by RandallFlagg ("I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it." --Quigley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

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.


17 posted on 03/15/2014 7:34:11 AM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lepton
Yep. That steaming sack of socialist sophistry we refer to in polite company as "The New Deal Commerce Clause".

They should have shot Wickard, and sent Filburn to Congress.

18 posted on 03/15/2014 7:39:54 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

Of course it is not. If it was, the left would argue for your right to "marry" it. Proof positive of the above statement.

19 posted on 03/15/2014 7:42:17 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Yes so listen up all of you Article Fiver’s. The Constitution is fine stop trying to ammend it.


20 posted on 03/15/2014 8:13:34 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob
Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

Of course it is not. If it was, the left would argue for your right to “marry” it.

Or abort it.

21 posted on 03/15/2014 10:32:54 AM PDT by RedMonqey ("Gun-free zones" equal "Target-rich environment.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lepton
Yo, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and any other guy you can get:
Shudda-uppa-you face until you figure out how to tell me

(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?

22 posted on 03/15/2014 10:33:57 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk ( The Republican Party is in Hospice Care. Hold all contributions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

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.


23 posted on 03/15/2014 2:00:35 PM PDT by generally (Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RedMonqey
Or abort it.

It all makes sense now...

24 posted on 03/15/2014 5:40:35 PM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson