Posted on 05/05/2005 3:22:31 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative
May 5, 2005 – Criticizing those who believe the Constitution should be flexible and adapted to modern times, Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Thursday during a speech at Texas A&M University that there is no such thing “as the living Constitution.”
Scalia was speaking as part of the Twanna M. Powell Lecture at the George Bush Presidential Conference Center.
“I’m what you call an ‘originalist,’ one who believes the Constitution should be interpreted exactly as it was adopted,” Scalia added.
“It should be interpreted as it was written – nothing more, nothing less. Rights do not grow smaller or larger. Some legal experts say you have to interpret the Constitution broadly, but that’s not true under any circumstance.”
Scalia, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan, added, “You hear the phrase ‘the living Constitution’ and that it’s a ‘living’ document. I’m a believer in the dead Constitution. Maybe we should better phrase it ‘the enduring Constitution.
“The Constitution is not a living document. It’s a legal document, and legal documents do not change.”
Scalia said that such controversial subjects as the death penalty and abortion are really not Constitutional issues “because there’s not one word about them in the Constitution. People who believe in a living Constitution would like to see such things as un-Constitutional.”
The Constitution, he added, does exactly what it’s supposed to do: “It provides stability,” he said.
Bush , when introducing Scalia, said that he “was a free spirit and deep thinker. He shares his views openly, and he is certainly thought-provoking.”
Among the overflow crowd to hear Scalia were members of the Texas Supreme Court, the Fifth Court of Circuit Appeals and numerous federal and state judges.
A native of Trenton, N.J., Scalia graduated from Harvard Law School and was a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University. He was also a law professor at the University of Virginia and the University of Chicago and visiting law professor at Stanford and Georgetown. He served the federal government as General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications Policy and was appointed judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia in 1982.
He and his wife, Maureen, have nine children.
Scalia, who was approved as a Supreme Court justice by a vote of 98-0, said such approval “would never happen today. Congress wants moderates and a moderate interpretation of the Constitution. The ‘living’ Constitution idea is seductive to the man on the street, and even to some judges.
“But we must apply the words as they were originally written and we must be bound by their original meaning. We must think of what the words are and what the words meant when the people adopted them.
“The Constitution doesn’t ‘morph’ to be what we want it to be.”
Scalia said if there were one change he could make to the Constitution, it would be to make amendments to it an easier process.
“Amendments are not easy to do,” he added.
“They must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. But someone figured out that with the population disparity of states today, only two percent of the total population could prevent an amendment from being passed. It’s very difficult to get an amendment passed.”
If it wasn't even at issue, why was the Federal Code cited in the ruling?
Read the dissent I posted. It explains all.
The man was never charged with violating a US law.
Do you agree that anyone convicted of a one year 'offense' should lose their RKBA's, forever? Why?
It depends.
Our RKBA's depends on what? On how Scalia feels on any particular day?
It squares with the proper method of changing the Constitution: Amendments.
Yes, I know. You think the 3 years he got weren't enough? Did he ask an American court for relief, requesting the American government intervene on his behalf with the Japanese government? I haven't seen all of the rulings that led up to this. Have you? I have not seen any of the briefs. You?
Please do NOT give me any business about his getting charged twice for the same offense, because doing so would be asking to have things both ways. Either his conviction counts or it doesn't. I have no problem accommodating him, either way. I doubt he'd like the kind of relief that I could grant him, because there are good odds that he'd still be losing his RTBA.
You think the dissent ruling was reading the code too widely? Tighten up wording of the code. Maybe it's just me, but the word "any" means "any". Show me some kind of proof that the intent of all of the writers & those that voted to make it into law meant it to say "any American" or that the word means "some" & I'll change my mind.
"Boy, Algore is going to have a fit. He is the believer of the Living Constitution."
Maybe he should get an award for that.
life & limb? What-tha.....
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Justice Scalia ping.
I didn't check to see how many of you looked at this and replied, but this is a great article.
With the test which you applied, that being the inability to keep and bear arms is rebuked if the person is convicted, were to be applied there could be no bill of attainder, nor fines, nor take property to satisfy any tort, or any other punishment which the constitution speaks to. This is the prescription for anarachy. Few on FR are advocates of this. Are you saying that any murderer should maintain the right to keep and bear arms after due process and conviction? Where are you going with your arguement. Everyone on FR agrees with due process. Everyone believes due process is the precursor to accountability.
Justice Scalia buuuuuuuummmp / ping!
Thanks for the ping!
It is a great article!
Thanks for posting it CC!
I bet NOT ONE Aggie got up and asked him a question like
that idiojit longhorn at UT asked Ann Coulter Tuesday night.Yep! I think a LOT of A&M / Aggies.
bump! bump! bump!
Well I'm not a Lawyer, but I believe that it was passed by the Congress - into law. If it was Not, then I guess you better tell all of the Americans of African decent that they are still slaves! See you when you get back!!
Pappy Bush comes to his library here quite often -- especially when prominent speakers show up.
We are bound by the meaning of the words, --
We are nevertheless stuck with what's written, not what was hoped for.
Exactly my point.
We are stuck with what's written in Article VI.
The fact its written that "Congress shall make no law" in the first clause of the 1st Amendment, -- does not allow States to make laws that infringe upon the individual rights outlined in the BOR's.
-- All of the Constitution & its Amendments are the supreme "Law of the Land". -- Anything in the "Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
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.