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.”
He expressed the radical view that government is morally obliged to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property. He explained the principle of checks and balances to limit government power. He favored representative government and a rule of law. He denounced tyranny. He insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel. --Jim Powell at the Foundation for Economic Education.
The sooner this man is the Chief Justice, the happier I will be.
The problem I have with the majority decision on that case is that it allows interntional criminals to own guns here.
If I remember right, that particular code had only been used in about 6 cases, so it was hardly doing much damage to the second amendment rights of most Americans who by and large do not travel outside the country and break laws while doing so.
Some make the argument that a foreign court should not have jurisdiction in whether or not a person should be stripped of his right to bear arms here. In fact, that is not what the law did. What it did was to allow the U.S. government to consider a foreign criminal unworthy of gun ownership here in this country. That was not a foreign court stipping you of your right to bear arms, that was our government.
So as usual, the libs on the Supreme court ignore the congress and changed the law to bad effect. In this case, allowing international criminals to own guns here.
Locke, Berkeley, and David Hume "The Empiricists", doubted that man could concieve in his mind that there was a God, unless that God placed the thought in the mind of the man. You're right, I did mean the 5th amendment
I'm really being dumb...I believe the "pursuit of happiness" is the Declaration of Independence rather than the 5th amendment
What it did was to allow the U.S. government to consider a foreign criminal unworthy of gun ownership here in this country.
If the specific clause that this case was about is the one that we've used to protect against the kind of individual you're talking about here, our legislators best get on the ball & amend the code.
My concern is about little Johnny Taliban (an American) involved in blowing up a pizzeria in Israel, getting convicted for it there, serving a couple of years & then coming home to bring his war here. The majority on SCOTUS wants the US to be blinded.
Yes, right. Thanks for mentioning the "planted thoughts" idea. It fits with a notion Lewis and Tolkien had about Christianity being the ultimate myth, and one God would have suggested to help human beings find the truth. I suppose they were just extending Lock, et. al.
By foreign, or international criminal, I mean anyone who has been convicted in any court other then one here in the U.S. He could be Johnny Taliban (a U.S. citizen), or he could be someone from another country who comes here and gains citizenship (or he could have dual citizenship at the time he committed the crime, for that matter).
I'll check back through the thread for your link. I don't think your fear of the Johnny Taliban scenario is unjustified, and I'm pretty sure that the law said "any court" because it in fact did mean any court, for exactly the reasons that you and I have laid out here.
While Mr. Small may have just smuggled a few guns into Japan illegaly, he could just as well have been a much more heinous character, and with the new decision, it wouldn't matter.
On the other hand, if he was convicted of sticking gum under a table in some nutty country where they lock you up for that, well, like you said, "it depends". Certainly there probably should be some exceptions made in those likely rare cases.
But to just open yourself up to foreign criminals without a care is pure stupidity.
Some time later, a search of his residence, business premises, and automobile revealed a .380 caliber Browning pistol and more than 300 rounds of ammunition. Id., at 47a-51a, 98a-99a. This prosecution ensued.
What I would like to know, what they searching for? The police had to have had cause to do the search. Were they looking for the gun or were they trying to prove something else against him & just happened to find the gun in the process of doing the search?
For that matter, there are some right here at FR who believe that the Constitution is a living document who won't receive this well either.
It's already out there in their posts, saved forever, for those who care to look.
Going to have to remember that line..."It’s a legal document, and legal documents do not change." Scalia
It could have been on something else, but you'd think we'd have heard about that.
As the law had been interpreted up until the SCOTUS decision, it would have been enough that he lied on the application.
Not necessarily. If it was something else, they may not have been able to make a case against him.
As the law had been interpreted up until the SCOTUS decision, it would have been enough that he lied on the application.
You're right. The ruling made his lie, not a lie. The sentence by the Japanese court didn't count & it was unnecessary to to admit to it on the application.
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.