Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[whitehall]

View huh? Strict? Not in the slightest. If there was there would be no restrictions on Free Speech, and there are. You managed to get it all wrong. Congrats.

Did I miss something? There are no restrictions on free speech.

Really? Yes, you missed something. Let me introduce you to the Real World: United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After you finish with that we can discuss Religious Restrictions, Press Restrictions, Gun Restrictions, and many others.

OK the classic "fire in the movie theater" argument. Go for it.

 

[Steinlight]

**** the Constitution, it is just a damned piece of paper with no importance in today's society. Our "leaders" use it to their ends, whether it means ignoring it to carry out their agenda or using their stacked courts to prevent the electorate or legislatures from passing "unconstitutional" laws they don't like.

That's both nuts, and wrong.

Wow, what a constructive argument.

The proof is in the damned language. When you say it is "living", you expose the document's meaninglessness, relativity, and therefore it's pliability to facilitate the political agenda of the powers at be.

If you trust the US Government, or believe they care about the Constitution, you are being taken for a ride.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Did I miss something? There are no restrictions on free speech.

Really? Yes, you missed something. Let me introduce you to the Real World: United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After you finish with that we can discuss Religious Restrictions, Press Restrictions, Gun Restrictions, and many others.

OK the classic "fire in the movie theater" argument. Go for it.

Ah, but you were going to show us the Strict View? Now, where is that exactly? Oh that's right, it doesn't exist.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

**** the Constitution, it is just a damned piece of paper with no importance in today's society. Our "leaders" use it to their ends, whether it means ignoring it to carry out their agenda or using their stacked courts to prevent the electorate or legislatures from passing "unconstitutional" laws they don't like.

That's both nuts, and wrong.

Wow, what a constructive argument.

The proof is in the damned language. When you say it is "living", you expose the documents, meaninglessness, relativity, and therefore it's pliability to facilitate the political agenda of the powers at be.

If you trust the US Government, or believe they care about the Constitution, you are being taken for a ride.

The Constitution is not a document with "no importance" as you stated. It is also very much still alive, and in force.

 

[Contumacious]

Justice Scalia has said that the 14th amendment doesn't protect equal rights for women, because the intent of it was to provide equal rights for blacks only.

Is he right?

Of course not.

Apparently Scalia doesn’t consider women to be persons.

Scalia is no different than any other rightwing partisan ideologue, hostile to 14th Amendment jurisprudence only because it benefits disadvantaged classes of persons conservatives disapprove of for purely subjective reasons.

The fourteenth amendment did not give women the right to vote. Refer to section 2 of the amendment. It refers to male inhabitants, over twenty-one years of age. Facts are facts, regardless of how much those facts hurt your sensibilities.

The right to vote was never addressed by the US Constitution. It used to be purely a state matter:


The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.)."

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
[December 12, 2000]

.

 

[bripat9643]

View huh? Strict? Not in the slightest. If there was there would be no restrictions on Free Speech, and there are. You managed to get it all wrong. Congrats.

Did I miss something? There are no restrictions on free speech.

Really? Yes, you missed something. Let me introduce you to the Real World: United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After you finish with that we can discuss Religious Restrictions, Press Restrictions, Gun Restrictions, and many others.

Those are all just examples of the Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution through interpretation, or they aren't examples of limitations on free speech.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Did I miss something? There are no restrictions on free speech.

Really? Yes, you missed something. Let me introduce you to the Real World: United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After you finish with that we can discuss Religious Restrictions, Press Restrictions, Gun Restrictions, and many others.

Those are all just examples of the Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution through interpretation, or they aren't examples of limitations on free speech.

Really? Would you like to test that in court? Try inciting a riot and see how that goes for you? Or how about a nice bit of Slander? Don't worry, I'll wait.

 

[Steinlight]

That's both nuts, and wrong.

Wow, what a constructive argument.

The proof is in the damned language. When you say it is "living", you expose the documents, meaninglessness, relativity, and therefore it's pliability to facilitate the political agenda of the powers at be.

If you trust the US Government, or believe they care about the Constitution, you are being taken for a ride.

The Constitution is not a document with "no importance" as you stated. It is also very much still alive, and in force.

By no importance I mean importance in the sense of the Founders' intent. It is important in how it is ignored or used by the powers that be to push their political agenda forward.

It is not "in force" . The Federal Government ignores the parts they don't like, follow the parts they like(which change over time, and are becoming less and less), and use the courts to deem laws they don't like unconstitutional. It is used as a weapon by the Feds(more particularly the Executive Branch) to enhance their power everyday.

 

[OKTexas]

Really? Yes, you missed something. Let me introduce you to the Real World: United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After you finish with that we can discuss Religious Restrictions, Press Restrictions, Gun Restrictions, and many others.

Those are all just examples of the Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution through interpretation, or they aren't examples of limitations on free speech.

Really? Would you like to test that in court? Try inciting a riot and see how that goes for you? Or how about a nice bit of Slander? Don't worry, I'll wait.

Your pal Harry slanders people from the well of the senate all the time with no consequences, hell he gave aid and comfort to the enemy with no consequences. If you folks didn't have hypocrisy you wouldn't have any standards at all.

 

[whitehall]

Really? Yes, you missed something. Let me introduce you to the Real World: United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After you finish with that we can discuss Religious Restrictions, Press Restrictions, Gun Restrictions, and many others.

OK the classic "fire in the movie theater" argument. Go for it.

Ah, but you were going to show us the Strict View? Now, where is that exactly? Oh that's right, it doesn't exist.

There is no conflict. The Constitution allowed for reasonable laws restricting freedoms. There was no supreme court review of the law against screaming fire in a crowded theater. We abide by laws that restrict freedom every day. The dirty little secret is when nine people in black who are sworn to protect the Constitution are of the opinion that the Constitution is not really a law but a guideline. The "right" to abortion was based on a concept of "privacy" that did not appear in the Constitution. The modern "separation of church/state" was based on a supreme court justice who was a former KKK member (appointed by FDR) and was based on obscure Jeffersonian letters rather than strict adherence to Constitutional principals. The point is whether the nine justices in black who are appointed for life should be guided by the strict Law of the Land or make critical decisions based on pop-culture values.

 

[bripat9643]

Really? Yes, you missed something. Let me introduce you to the Real World: United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After you finish with that we can discuss Religious Restrictions, Press Restrictions, Gun Restrictions, and many others.

Those are all just examples of the Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution through interpretation, or they aren't examples of limitations on free speech.

Really? Would you like to test that in court? Try inciting a riot and see how that goes for you? Or how about a nice bit of Slander? Don't worry, I'll wait.

The fact that the stooges in court go along with rewriting the Constitution proves absolutely nothing.

 

[Contumacious]

OK the classic "fire in the movie theater" argument. Go for it.

Ah, but you were going to show us the Strict View? Now, where is that exactly? Oh that's right, it doesn't exist.

There is no conflict. The Constitution allowed for reasonable laws restricting freedoms.

Only where those poweres were specifically enumerated.

There was no supreme court review of the law against screaming fire in a crowded theater.

Theaters are private property hence the Constitution does not apply. The rights in a movie theater are acquired contractually.

We abide by laws that restrict freedom every day. The dirty little secret is when nine people in black who are sworn to protect the Constitution are of the opinion that the Constitution is not really a law but a guideline.

Agree.

The "right" to abortion was based on a concept of "privacy" that did not appear in the Constitution.

Neither is the right to take a shit. Read the Ninth Amendment.


T

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Those are all just examples of the Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution through interpretation, or they aren't examples of limitations on free speech.

Really? Would you like to test that in court? Try inciting a riot and see how that goes for you? Or how about a nice bit of Slander? Don't worry, I'll wait.

The fact that the stooges in court go along with rewriting the Constitution proves absolutely nothing.

Ignore the numerous restrictions on Free Speech and find out. I myself have an interesting little deal with the Feds, it says that I can never speak of what I used to do for them or what I know, and it's perfectly legal. Now do I have Free Speech? Well, kinda of, but not about what they don't want spoken of. If I do the Supreme Court has a simple resolution for me, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, go directly to jail, for life in this case.

Now, where is this Unrestricted Free Speech you speak of? In reality, it doesn't exist.

 

[hatman]

If the Constitution is a living organism, what does it eat and where does it shit?

Seriously, people who don't metaphorize well shouldn't metaphorize.

If corporations are people what does it eat? Can I also marry and divorce Mcdonalds and get half?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Those are all just examples of the Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution through interpretation, or they aren't examples of limitations on free speech.

Who says what the "original interpretation" of the US Constitution is exactly?

How do you incorporate the internet into the first amendment if no one can interpret the law?

Who decides what the 9A means? What happens when a new right is considered to exist by the people?

The US Govt makes a new law that has never existed in the US, not in 1776, not in 1789, not in 1865, not in 2013, who decides whether this new law is constitutional when the issues could not have been clear to those who wrote the constitution?

Without someone to interpret the constitution, it doesn't mean anything. That's what courts do. That's what judicial power is.

 

[OKTexas]

Those are all just examples of the Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution through interpretation, or they aren't examples of limitations on free speech.

Who says what the "original interpretation" of the US Constitution is exactly?

The people who wrote it, isn't that why we write things down, to preserve the meaning?

How do you incorporate the internet into the first amendment if no one can interpret the law?

Legislation is up to congress.

Who decides what the 9A means? What happens when a new right is considered to exist by the people?

The founder never thought anyone would be needed to define our natural rights, in fact some said the bill of rights was unnecessary. Of course they couldn't foresee modern legislators and lawyers who would challenge the bill of rights.

The US Govt makes a new law that has never existed in the US, not in 1776, not in 1789, not in 1865, not in 2013, who decides whether this new law is constitutional when the issues could not have been clear to those who wrote the constitution?

If a new law is needed to give the government a power not enumerated in the constitution, see article 5.

Without someone to interpret the constitution, it doesn't mean anything. That's what courts do. That's what judicial power is.

Courts are there to ensure the law and constitution, as written, are applied properly, nothing else. The constitution gives them no other authority.

 

[bripat9643]

Those are all just examples of the Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution through interpretation, or they aren't examples of limitations on free speech.

Who says what the "original interpretation" of the US Constitution is exactly?

How do you incorporate the internet into the first amendment if no one can interpret the law?

Who decides what the 9A means? What happens when a new right is considered to exist by the people?

The US Govt makes a new law that has never existed in the US, not in 1776, not in 1789, not in 1865, not in 2013, who decides whether this new law is constitutional when the issues could not have been clear to those who wrote the constitution?

Without someone to interpret the constitution, it doesn't mean anything. That's what courts do. That's what judicial power is.

Even considering all that to be true, the fact remains that the Supreme Court rewrites the Constitution with so-called "interpretations." That's what Roberts did when he said the penalty in the ACA was a tax. You have to ignore the well understood definitions of words like "penalty" and "tax" to reach such a conclusion. In fact, you even have to ignore what the Obama administration said about he ACA to reach such a conclusion.

The question we have to ask is should the government be trusted to interpret a document objectively that limits its power? In any dispute between private parties and the government, can an arm of the government be trusted to treat both sides equally? Anyone who believes it can is a fool.

Allowing the Supreme Court a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution needs to end. Until the Civil War, the SC didn't have such authority. States could overrule the Supreme Court simply by ignoring Laws passed by Congress that the states didn't like. Jury nullification also place a check on the government's power. Unfortunately the federal government has largely neutered these to mechanisms. Personally I believe government is inherently corrupt and can never be entrusted with power over anyone. That's why I'm an anarchist.

 

[DriftingSand]

The libturds are always saying that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Do you suppose they will accept what this Supreme Court justices has to say?

Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism' | Fox News

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."​

Now if all the Justices would say it in unison and start defending it then we might get back on track (and Obama would be out of a job).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who believes the Constitution guarantees and protected unrestricted free speech is not only a nimrod, but also mentally feeble, ignorant, malignantly motivated, or a combination of three.

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone who believes the Constitution guarantees and protected unrestricted free speech is not only a nimrod, but also mentally feeble, ignorant, malignantly motivated, or a combination of three.

Fakey: I found a website you will find useful.

Alzheimer's, Dementia and Memory Care Facilities | Alzheimer's Locator

Just enter your zip and soon you will have place where you can be properly taken care of.