Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[PaintMyHouse]

Did the three laws of motion stop because Newton died?

No, they went on, and were expanded upon as we learned more.

Actually, no they weren't. The Three laws stand today as they did then. We have learned more based upon the foundation they taught us. But we don't change the laws of motion to make boats larger and still float, do we?

I'm not suggesting that the laws aren't still valid, but we know much more about them. We live a rather Newtonian world but there are worlds that don't, the very very large and the very very small. All hell starts to break loose there. That's not something Newton either knew about or should have been expected to have accounted for.

The Founders never intended for the Constitution to live this long. Even they couldn't fully agree on what it meant. The fact that it is still in force was our choice, and would surprise the hell out them.

 

[Howey]

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.
\
"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."​

It's sad the Founding Fathers and half of his fellow SCOTUS disagree with him.

 

[paperview]

This Conservative does....guess that shoots your quip all to hell...

If your name is bripat and you sport a toddler flipping the bird as your avi, I suppose so.

YOu said rightwing, not bripat....As a Conservative, I guess that puts Me in the right wing.

Are you blind to words you're quoting??

"Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here..."

I put it in red to help facilitate your learning.

 

[Darkwind]

No, they went on, and were expanded upon as we learned more.

Actually, no they weren't. The Three laws stand today as they did then. We have learned more based upon the foundation they taught us. But we don't change the laws of motion to make boats larger and still float, do we?

I'm not suggesting that the laws aren't still valid, but we know much more about them. We live a rather Newtonian world but there are worlds that don't, the very very large and the very very small. All hell starts to break loose there. That's not something Newton either knew about or should have been expected to have accounted for.

The Founders never intended for the Constitution to live this long. Even they couldn't fully agree on what it meant. The fact that it is still in force was our choice, and would surprise the hell out them.

In fact, they intended it to live forever. You see, the Constitution is an instrument that does one thing, and it does it regardless of the current 'fad'.

That is put limits and shackles on government. The fact that the Amendment process takes decades instead of months proves that while the foundation is solid and necessary, what we learn from that and our ability to change is is slow, and considered.

As it should be.

 

[paperview]

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

 

[Darkwind]

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

Yes, Georges Coat of Tyranny....that would be the King for those of you who are slow...

Freedom however, is a garment that is always in style and fits to perfection.. -- Me.I really like that. I'm going to coin that one....

 

[paperview]

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

Yes, Georges Coat of Tyranny....that would be the King for those of you who are slow...

Freedom however, is a garment that is always in style and fits to perfection.. -- Me.I really like that. I'm going to coin that one....

Er, Jefferson was talking about laws and the Constitution...

The full quote:

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.

As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -

 

[paperview]

Want more?

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.

They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.

I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country.

It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

 

[Darkwind]

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

Yes, Georges Coat of Tyranny....that would be the King for those of you who are slow...

Freedom however, is a garment that is always in style and fits to perfection.. -- Me.I really like that. I'm going to coin that one....

Er, Jefferson was talking about laws and the Constitution...

The full quote:

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.

As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -

And what do you think he was speaking too, when he made these remarks?

Jefferson and the voting Continental Congress did not abolish change to our Constitution. They made it impervious to whim or fads....

The Amendment process is what the progressives are always going on about and how they hate it. They want to change the Constitution by a mere majority vote in a Congress that they control, under a President they approve.

In fact, the Amendment process is designed to invoke deep debate, and take decades, if not generations. This is so that the whims and stupidity of the young and emotional do not override the overall architecture of the Constitution. Which is limited and restricted government, and the power residing in the peoples hands.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In fact, they intended it to live forever.

That's just nonsense, and means you don't know of the actual Founders. They didn't think the nation would live long let alone the founding document.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So everything that isn't of the 18th century is unconstitutional. Boy do I hope your party is laughed out of the door!

 

[dblack]

However, it's interpretation is

... its interpretation. Which is not at all what's being pushed by "living document" advocates.

 

[Bfgrn]

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 willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself."
Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, no they weren't. The Three laws stand today as they did then. We have learned more based upon the foundation they taught us. But we don't change the laws of motion to make boats larger and still float, do we?

I'm not suggesting that the laws aren't still valid, but we know much more about them. We live a rather Newtonian world but there are worlds that don't, the very very large and the very very small. All hell starts to break loose there. That's not something Newton either knew about or should have been expected to have accounted for.

The Founders never intended for the Constitution to live this long. Even they couldn't fully agree on what it meant. The fact that it is still in force was our choice, and would surprise the hell out them.

In fact, they intended it to live forever. You see, the Constitution is an instrument that does one thing, and it does it regardless of the current 'fad'.

That is put limits and shackles on government. The fact that the Amendment process takes decades instead of months proves that while the foundation is solid and necessary, what we learn from that and our ability to change is is slow, and considered.

As it should be.

This is the conservative's scam. Declare that the Constitution only means what conservatives think it means,

and then claim that in order for it to mean otherwise you have to amend it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So you think the nws, epa, fbi, cia, nasa, fda and the airforce is all illegal. LOL


Boy do you people have a fucked up vision for this country.

 

[Darkwind]

In fact, they intended it to live forever.

That's just nonsense, and means you don't know of the actual Founders. They didn't think the nation would live long let alone the founding document.

I'm not the one spouting nonsense. The Founders fully intended people of honor to fight and preserve the intent and meaning of the country they bled for. The fact that you would think that a people who lived then would believe otherwise shows you have been emasculated by today's world.

These were men who would draw steel for an impingement on their honor. They believed fully in what they did was right and that the creation of this new country was right, just and worthy of preservation. They belived that the document they created was worth going on forever. Or for as long as we had the honor and courage to hold it.

In that they may have erred. We no longer seem to be a people of reason, honor, or values. Only a people of the 'now'.

 

[ScienceRocks]

There's a lot of things I disagree with the democrats on but they're not planning to take me back to the 18th century! God it will be hard as I do understand that they're also extreme on social issues and we do have a effiancy problem when it comes to spending.

But I have come to the conclusion that the tea party wants us to become Haiti. So democrat it is.

 

[dblack]

I'm not suggesting that the laws aren't still valid, but we know much more about them. We live a rather Newtonian world but there are worlds that don't, the very very large and the very very small. All hell starts to break loose there. That's not something Newton either knew about or should have been expected to have accounted for.

The Founders never intended for the Constitution to live this long. Even they couldn't fully agree on what it meant. The fact that it is still in force was our choice, and would surprise the hell out them.

In fact, they intended it to live forever. You see, the Constitution is an instrument that does one thing, and it does it regardless of the current 'fad'.

That is put limits and shackles on government. The fact that the Amendment process takes decades instead of months proves that while the foundation is solid and necessary, what we learn from that and our ability to change is is slow, and considered.

As it should be.

This is the conservative's scam. Declare that the Constitution only means what conservatives think it means,

and then claim that in order for it to mean otherwise you have to amend it.

That's not the argument. Debate over interpretation is legitimate. "Living document" proponents want to change the meaning as needed, without going through the amendment process. That just "cheating".

 

[NYcarbineer]

However, it's interpretation is

... its interpretation. Which is not at all what's being pushed by "living document" advocates.

Unless you take away the power of the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution, it's a 'living document' to whatever extent the judges decide it is.

 

[bedowin62]

There's a lot of things I disagree with the democrats on but they're not planning to take me back to the 18th century! God it will be hard as I do understand that they're also extreme on social issues and we do have a effiancy problem when it comes to spending.

But I have come to the conclusion that the tea party wants us to become Haiti. So democrat it is.

things were MUCH BETTER WHEN REPUBS ran things

we are closer to Haiti under obama than we have been in a generation
HIGHER POVERTY
HIGHER unemployment
LOWER rate of participation in the labor market


true story