Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[NYcarbineer]

LOL, you need to learn to use Google:

US Constitution, Article V: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, also as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

And seriously, when the Courts do it, that is "the people" changing it?

We have a representative government. Our representatives choose the judges.

So you are stating that the COURTS may alter the Constitution? Really?

In the sense that the Constitution is very general, and in the sense that each decided case, when it becomes case law, is specific, and adds another degree of specificity to the Constitution,

yes they can alter the Constitution.

 

[The T]

So you think that when the 14th amendment gave 'any person' in the US equal protection under the law,

it's a divination as you call it to assume that homosexuals, or women should be considered included under the umbrella of 'any person'??

Edited -- ok, I think I get what you're asking now.

Whether or not that is 'living document' bullshit or not, depends on whether you think those who ratified the 14th meant to exclude women or homosexuals. If you think they did, you'd need another amendment to correct it, and not just 'interpretation'.

But that is up to the judges to decide. That is part of their mandate. Deciding what you describe above is an exercise in 'interpretation', and interpreting the law is what the court does.

It is their JOB to adhere to the INTENT of the Document. The Founders were quite clear. And the Courts were to remain impartial and non PARTISAN.

 

[kaz]

LOL, you need to learn to use Google:

US Constitution, Article V: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, also as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

And seriously, when the Courts do it, that is "the people" changing it?

We have a representative government. Our representatives choose the judges.

So you are stating that the COURTS may alter the Constitution? Really?

We didn't elect our representatives to be dictators, we elected them to appoint dictators...

 

[kaz]

Edited -- ok, I think I get what you're asking now.

Whether or not that is 'living document' bullshit or not, depends on whether you think those who ratified the 14th meant to exclude women or homosexuals. If you think they did, you'd need another amendment to correct it, and not just 'interpretation'.

But that is up to the judges to decide. That is part of their mandate. Deciding what you describe above is an exercise in 'interpretation', and interpreting the law is what the court does.

It is their JOB to adhere to the INTENT of the Document. The Founders were quite clear. And the Courts were to remain impartial and non PARTISAN.

Being Democrat is being non-partisan, partisan is when they favor Republicans. Like in Gore v. Bush, that was a Partisan ruling.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Scalia is an egomaniac and one reason the Supreme Court needs to establish a code of ethics, as done by all of the inferior courts. His coziness with Cheney and the Koch Brothers puts him squarely in the camp of the Plutocrats and at odds with the vision statement of the founders, to wit:

Yep, anyone who disagrees with you not only is wrong, but they are disagreeing with you because there is something actually wrong with them. There is no other explanation since you know the one and only truth. Hmm...maybe you're the egomaniac...

Clearly there is something wrong with you.

 

[kaz]

Scalia is an egomaniac and one reason the Supreme Court needs to establish a code of ethics, as done by all of the inferior courts. His coziness with Cheney and the Koch Brothers puts him squarely in the camp of the Plutocrats and at odds with the vision statement of the founders, to wit:

Yep, anyone who disagrees with you not only is wrong, but they are disagreeing with you because there is something actually wrong with them. There is no other explanation since you know the one and only truth. Hmm...maybe you're the egomaniac...

Clearly there is something wrong with you.

You thinking people who disagree with you are egomaniacs is perfectly normal. There is however something wrong with anyone who points it out.

Got it, and filed for future reference...

 

[dblack]

So you think that when the 14th amendment gave 'any person' in the US equal protection under the law,

it's a divination as you call it to assume that homosexuals, or women should be considered included under the umbrella of 'any person'??

Edited -- ok, I think I get what you're asking now.

Whether or not that is 'living document' bullshit or not, depends on whether you think those who ratified the 14th meant to exclude women or homosexuals. If you think they did, you'd need another amendment to correct it, and not just 'interpretation'.

But that is up to the judges to decide. That is part of their mandate. Deciding what you describe above is an exercise in 'interpretation', and interpreting the law is what the court does.

Yep. As I said, the 'living document' argument isn't about whether interpretation should occur. It's vital that it does. That's what the Court is for. The argument is what the goal of that interpretation should be - shouldn't it be to accurately reflect the intent of those who ratified the Constitution and its amendments? The living document movement says, "no", the goal should be to adjust the meaning to suit our current values. And I'm saying that's bullshit. That's just a sleight-of-hand to avoid the amendment process. It renders the Constitution's power as a binding document moot.

To clarify, would you sign a 'living contract', where lawyers could later 'interpret' its meaning to something different than what you understood it to mean when you signed it??? I don't think any sane person would, but that's what the living document people are asking us to accept.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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."​

I disagree. We can't reasonably expect a document written over 200 years ago to apply to modern needs as it did back then. Technological differences alone make that a no-brainer. Many of our modern laws and rights aren't in the original Constitution, to say nothing of civi and equal rights. If we use the Constitution as written, and nothing else (governance by the courts) then women can't vote, and blacks are just 3/5ths equal to white men.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hundreds of years of court decisions on the interpretation of the Constitution s a living organism

Scalia, if anyone, should understand his job

Your statement is meaningless. We already know the Supreme Court has stretched the meaning of the Constitution beyond recognition. The question being discussed is whether its correct to do so.

The answer to this question is also meaningless.

A man can only be destroyed by a Jury of People, by the People, for the People. No Court can overturn an acquittal. No Executive can imprison an acquitted man, and no Legislative Body can pass a Bill of Attainder to usurp an acquittal of a Jury.

This is why the Fugitive Slave Clause and Progressive Prohibition of Alcohol was pretty much ineffective, even though they were in the Constitution itself. Juries more often than not acquitted (or hanged) in these cases.

There is a reason that the Obamacare Penalty has been classified as a "tax." It was classified as a tax to make it immune to Jury review.

Jury nullification is the only peaceful solution to the Progressive assault on American liberties, and they will use the SCOTUS Obamacare precedent to classify many other penalties as a tax, in order to destroy those who will not conform to their agenda.

This should be read again and again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

George Bush won the election in 2000 very likely because of the 5 -4 Supreme Court decision in his favor. One vote of one judge.

If one of those judges in the majority had left the Court a few years before, and been replaced by a Clinton nominee, it's entirely possible, all else being equal, that Gore would have won that election, after a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling in his favor.

Which decision would have been right? Which would have been wrong? Who's to say?

 

[regent]

"The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and alter their constitutions of government."

George Washington Farewell address 1796

 

[NYcarbineer]

Edited -- ok, I think I get what you're asking now.

Whether or not that is 'living document' bullshit or not, depends on whether you think those who ratified the 14th meant to exclude women or homosexuals. If you think they did, you'd need another amendment to correct it, and not just 'interpretation'.

But that is up to the judges to decide. That is part of their mandate. Deciding what you describe above is an exercise in 'interpretation', and interpreting the law is what the court does.

Yep. As I said, the 'living document' argument isn't about whether interpretation should occur. It's vital that it does. That's what the Court is for. The argument is what the goal of that interpretation should be - shouldn't it be to accurately reflect the intent of those who ratified the Constitution and its amendments? The living document movement says, "no", the goal should be to adjust the meaning to suit our current values. And I'm saying that's bullshit. That's just a sleight-of-hand to avoid the amendment process. It renders the Constitution's power as a binding document moot.

To clarify, would you sign a 'living contract', where lawyers could later 'interpret' its meaning to something different than what you understood it to mean when you signed it??? I don't think any sane person would, but that's what the living document people are asking us to accept.

You get to vote for the president and your Senators. That is where your voice in the decision of who will be on the Supreme Court is heard.

As to the contract analogy, the Constitution is very general by nature and probably by intent. Most legal contracts are not, so the analogy doesn't work well. Furthermore, in the event there is vagary in a contract you signed, a judge will probably make an interpretation based on what he has to work with.

Plus we don't get to sign or not sign the Constitution. It's already in place.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Edited -- ok, I think I get what you're asking now.

Whether or not that is 'living document' bullshit or not, depends on whether you think those who ratified the 14th meant to exclude women or homosexuals. If you think they did, you'd need another amendment to correct it, and not just 'interpretation'.

But that is up to the judges to decide. That is part of their mandate. Deciding what you describe above is an exercise in 'interpretation', and interpreting the law is what the court does.

It is their JOB to adhere to the INTENT of the Document. The Founders were quite clear. And the Courts were to remain impartial and non PARTISAN.

There is no job description for the Court that includes that instruction.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Notwithstanding the comment above, consider this:

Apply the Code of Conduct for United States Judges to the Supreme Court | CREDO Mobilize

And who will enforce that?

Gee, and I thought you thought you are an expert on the Constitution.

See:

Article II, Sec. 4; and Art. III, Sec. 1

You're most welcome, in my effort to educate the ignorant I'm pleased to assist you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the conservative original intent crowd believes that equal rights for women are not protected in the Constitution, as Scalia claims,

then why was it the right that killed the ERA, the Equal Rights Amendment, that would have effectively remedied that?

Is it because, deep down, conservatives don't WANT equal rights for women?

 

[dblack]

But that is up to the judges to decide. That is part of their mandate. Deciding what you describe above is an exercise in 'interpretation', and interpreting the law is what the court does.

Yep. As I said, the 'living document' argument isn't about whether interpretation should occur. It's vital that it does. That's what the Court is for. The argument is what the goal of that interpretation should be - shouldn't it be to accurately reflect the intent of those who ratified the Constitution and its amendments? The living document movement says, "no", the goal should be to adjust the meaning to suit our current values. And I'm saying that's bullshit. That's just a sleight-of-hand to avoid the amendment process. It renders the Constitution's power as a binding document moot.

To clarify, would you sign a 'living contract', where lawyers could later 'interpret' its meaning to something different than what you understood it to mean when you signed it??? I don't think any sane person would, but that's what the living document people are asking us to accept.

You get to vote for the president and your Senators. That is where your voice in the decision of who will be on the Supreme Court is heard.

As to the contract analogy, the Constitution is very general by nature and probably by intent. Most legal contracts are not, so the analogy doesn't work well. Furthermore, in the event there is vagary in a contract you signed, a judge will probably make an interpretation based on what he has to work with.

Right. And the question "LD" raises is - what should matter in that interpretation? Should the focus be on what you thought the contract meant when you signed it? Or should the judges inject their own ideas about what it ought to mean?

Plus we don't get to sign or not sign the Constitution. It's already in place.

Implicitly, we do. Or, rather our ancestors did for us. None of this changes the nature of the argument. Do you really want to be held accountable for a contract that can change its meaning based on the agenda of whoever is interpreting it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

George Bush won the election in 2000 very likely because of the 5 -4 Supreme Court decision in his favor. One vote of one judge.

If one of those judges in the majority had left the Court a few years before, and been replaced by a Clinton nominee, it's entirely possible, all else being equal, that Gore would have won that election, after a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling in his favor.

Which decision would have been right? Which would have been wrong? Who's to say?

I imagine all of those who died on Sept. 11, all of those killed in the Iraq war as well as their loved ones, and those who lost limbs and suffer TBI's would decide the decision was poor, and would like Gore to have been POTUS. He might have listened when GWB did not and he might not have attacked and occupied Iraq.

 

[dblack]

But that is up to the judges to decide. That is part of their mandate. Deciding what you describe above is an exercise in 'interpretation', and interpreting the law is what the court does.

Yep. As I said, the 'living document' argument isn't about whether interpretation should occur. It's vital that it does. That's what the Court is for. The argument is what the goal of that interpretation should be - shouldn't it be to accurately reflect the intent of those who ratified the Constitution and its amendments? The living document movement says, "no", the goal should be to adjust the meaning to suit our current values. And I'm saying that's bullshit. That's just a sleight-of-hand to avoid the amendment process. It renders the Constitution's power as a binding document moot.

To clarify, would you sign a 'living contract', where lawyers could later 'interpret' its meaning to something different than what you understood it to mean when you signed it??? I don't think any sane person would, but that's what the living document people are asking us to accept.

You get to vote for the president and your Senators. That is where your voice in the decision of who will be on the Supreme Court is heard.

Btw - this idea is really a fundamental problem with our current politics. The whole idea of the Constitution is to provide a stable grant of sovereignty that isn't up for constant modification. If every single election is a referendum on the foundational nature of our government, if every election risks nominating judges who are allowed to make radical 'living' changes to the meaning of the Constitution, well - then we're doomed to vicious political struggles with every single election.

Which, is what we've been seeing, isn't it?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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."​

I disagree. We can't reasonably expect a document written over 200 years ago to apply to modern needs as it did back then. Technological differences alone make that a no-brainer. Many of our modern laws and rights aren't in the original Constitution, to say nothing of civi and equal rights. If we use the Constitution as written, and nothing else (governance by the courts) then women can't vote, and blacks are just 3/5ths equal to white men.

You're argument is not against strict constructionism. The latter is flexible. It can and does address any potentiality. What does not change are the eternal, absolute and universal imperatives of reality that inform it via the consequent imperatives in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Hello! That's what those who don't apprehend or don't respect the founding sociopolitical ethos of the Republic will never understand.

Rather, you're merely confounding the distinction between the concerns of case law and those that may arise and compel the processes for amending the Constitution, and the resolutions of the latter should still be consistent with the underlying imperatives of reality, the natural law of inalienable rights endowed by divinity, not the state.

First, technological developments do not pose a problem for the Constitution as originally drafted and never have. "[N]o-brainer, you say"?! Case law deals with that, albeit, as predicated on the imperatives of constitutional and natural law.

It's not a problem. But if you still think it is, well, provide examples, and I'll show you why you're wrong.

Second, civil rights or so-called equal rights? Again, case law deals with that, and we either maintain the integrity of original intent, the integrity of a representative Republic of inalienable rights, by observing the absolute and universal imperatives of reality on which the Constitution is premised or we don't.

Third, the Constitution was amended to make all persons duly a part of the United States citizens thereof in every respect. Case law, in and of itself, had nothing to do with that. The latter, the subsequent stare decisis premised on the amended Constitution, has merely shaped the application of the respective amendments . . . sometimes faithfully, sometimes to the determent of the Republic.

 

[Silhouette]

From the OP:

"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."

However, it's interpretation is

But the interpretation must be absolutely as conservative and stubbornly so as it can possibly be. Otherwise it becomes legislating from the bench.

This is why the Justice Sotomayor's behavior in public this last New Year's Eve in Times Square was so shocking. The Justices must maintain the most rigid composure of all the elected officials. Their behavior simply cannot be interpreted as biased. Neither can their attitude and record of voting. When they took the job, they took also their employer's [We the People] mandatory required dress code for work as well. That "dress code" means that they display nonchalance and distance from each and every controversial subject in society. ESPECIALLY when they know it's heading their way for a decision.

Making Sotomayor's antics even worse was her knowledge at the time that hotly disputed social issues like religious pioty vs moral freeforalls are coming to their Court this year in droves. Sotomayor doing the can-can when people already miserably predict how she will vote on any given topic is grounds for impeachment.

A Justice of the Court must be sober, boring, reserved, conservative and unpredictable in how they vote. Otherwise it can cause citizen unrest. It is a direct relationship. When you feel like the last voice on a disputed topic in the justice system is already stacked against you, you might take the law into your own hands from frustration. This is always the lurking danger and why the US Supreme Court more than the presidency or the Congress is the most vital figurehead of our country.

Pity that some don't take it that seriously...