Justice Scalia: “A Living Constitution Doesn’t Exist” [Speech at Texas A&M]

Texas A&M University - Aggie Daily ^ | May 5, 2005

[Paige]

This man is absolutely brilliant!

[CHARLITE]

QUOTE OF THE DAY (from GetLiberty.com)

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

James Madison

[freedomfiter2]

sorry - tried -

I thought you meant tied tightly around the neck.

[IoCaster]

“The Constitution is not a living document. It’s a legal document, and legal documents do not change.”

Hehe....just so. Try to re-interpret the meaning of a subpoena or a search warrant and see what a judge has to say about it. It's amazing sometimes the level of utter BS that people will choose to believe. Well, perhaps not so amazing after all.

;o)

[wardaddy]

BTTT

[wardaddy]

9 children?

I never knew.

My hero.

Procreate baby!

[Buck W.]

"Bush , when introducing Scalia, ..."

Bush was there?

[nothingnew]

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

James Madison

Oh yeah. We witness it every day.

BTTT

FMCDH(BITS)

[plangent]

The fifth Ammendment sets out the safeguard for
being tried for a ''Capital'' crime. While the term
''death'' is not used, a capital crime is one for which
you lose your capit - ''head''.

IMHO, the 5th condones the death penalty because it sets
the guidelines for imposing it.

[Bahbah]

Scalia for Chief Justice.

[aquila48]

“The Constitution is not a living document. It’s a legal document, and legal documents do not change.”

Actually it can change, and it's been changed 27 times - with amendments.

Yes, it is hard to do, and rightfully so. It contains wisdom of ages and new wisdom doesn't come by that fast or easily.

[Abcdefg]

The Emancipation Proclomantion is not law as defined by the Constitution, as far as I can tell.

[mlc9852]

You are so right.

[econ_grad]

Is he saying that diversity is not a legitimate interest of the federal government since it is not mentioned in the Constitution? That will not make the Bush crowd happy.

[F.J. Mitchell]

A living Constitution would be the death of the Republic.

[Texas Songwriter]

I love Scalia. The beauty of simplicity. Think of Marcus Aurelieus.....What is its nature...."The constitution is not a living document, it is a legal document, and legal documents do not change." Sorry, I got caught up in the moment...Another famous person told us to think of things in its simplicity.

[P_A_I]

CIDKauf wrote:

To be deprived of "life, liberty,or property without due process of law".

..so this is to say that with due process of law, then one could be deprived of life, liberty, and property?


_____________________________________


Yes indeed. -- A man decreed to be a felon [in a foreign court] can be deprived of his right to keep & bear arms, according to Scalia & Thomas..

Thomas dissents against RKBA's in Small v. US
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1392339/posts


Those of you here who are in awe of Scalia's "strict constructionism" need to ponder this dissent.

[AntiBurr]

"Rights do not grow smaller or larger." How is this squared with the 9th amendment?

Article IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This seems fairly straightforward to me. Rights enumerated in the Constitution are rights permitted to the government. It really boils down to the fact that the "Bill of Rights" has always been misnamed and should have been called the "Bill of Restrictions". If you read them closely, you find that they never define anyone's rights, but certainly define what Congress is not allowed to do.

I would recommend "The Lost History of the Ninth" by Kurt Lash. Also the companion "The Lost Jurisprudence" by the same author. They are available for download (free)from the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) electronic library at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=505482.

[Texas Songwriter]

You are correct CID. To interpret it any other way is to try to mould it to mean what they want it to say. This is what Scalia was talking about. Scalia clearly meant that the constitution did not weigh in on the death penalty. Therefore it is the perview of the state or the people.

[Marauder]

The reason the Constitution should not be messed with is that it addresses the weaknesses, quirks, and ambitions of human nature, which hasn't changed since we arrived.