Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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".

It's a circular argument. Who is going to decide that the Supreme Court made a 'living document' ruling?

"Living document" advocates admit they are changing the meaning. They believe that's necessary to address our changing needs. But that's what the amendment process is for, and they're trying to do an end run around it because they can't be bothered to build the consensus required to make their desired changes legitimately.

Nonsense.

It was the intent of the Framers to subject laws to judicial review in the context of Separation of Powers Doctrine, where the courts are authorized to interpret the Constitution when determining the validity of measures challenged by citizens pursuant to their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and finding such measures offensive to the Constitution, strike them down.

The process of judicial review is at the heart of our Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men – which is why the Framers wisely decided to not make America a democracy.

Consequently, the process of judicial review neither changes the meaning of the Constitution nor the Constitution itself, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, where the process of judicial review affords society a means to bring to a final resolution the conflicts and controversies of the day.

To argue that the ‘amendment process’ should be the sole means by which the conflicts and controversies of the day should be ‘resolved,’ abandoning the process of judicial review altogether, is inane and untenable – as the very notion is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of our Constitutional Republic, and would render the Constitution, riddled with literally thousands of ‘amendments,’ completely useless.

 

[Contumacious]

It's a circular argument. Who is going to decide that the Supreme Court made a 'living document' ruling?

"Living document" advocates admit they are changing the meaning. They believe that's necessary to address our changing needs. But that's what the amendment process is for, and they're trying to do an end run around it because they can't be bothered to build the consensus required to make their desired changes legitimately.

Nonsense.

It was the intent of the Framers to subject laws to judicial review .

True.

But Article III courts have been abolished .

The "justices" are now a cabinet level position.

.

 

[rightwinger]

However, it's interpretation is

You lefties think the US Constitution is there for your personal enjoyment. To be used, twisted or ignored for the sole purpose of personal or political gain.
No reaction is more knee jerk than when you people read "the US Constitution is a limiting document"....

Howso?

The founders never thought their document applied to women and landholders let alone blacks or native Americans

What was their Constituional opinion of the rights of gays?

 

[rightwinger]

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

Scalia, if anyone, should understand his job

Define "living organism"...
I have the suspicion you have a far left interpretation of that term.
More or less on the level of "you'll receive the rights we deem fit for you to have".

Ask Scalia

 

[boedicca]

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

Scalia, if anyone, should understand his job

Define "living organism"...
I have the suspicion you have a far left interpretation of that term.
More or less on the level of "you'll receive the rights we deem fit for you to have".

Ask Scalia

Do you really need somebody to explain what a living organism is to you?

Jeebus.

SRSLY.

Jeebus.

 

[Contumacious]

However, it's interpretation is

You lefties think the US Constitution is there for your personal enjoyment. To be used, twisted or ignored for the sole purpose of personal or political gain.
No reaction is more knee jerk than when you people read "the US Constitution is a limiting document"....

Howso?

The founders never thought their document applied to women and landholders let alone blacks or native Americans

What was their Constituional opinion of the rights of gays?

.

 

[paperview]

Howso?

The founders never thought their document applied to women and landholders let alone blacks or native Americans

What was their Constituional opinion of the rights of gays?

.

Wow. That one needs more than one of those.



Seriously.

 

[Contumacious]

Howso?

The founders never thought their document applied to women and landholders let alone blacks or native Americans

What was their Constituional opinion of the rights of gays?

.

Is that you way of apologizing since your search did not, and could not, find one single Founding Father stating that the Constitution did not apply to blacks, women or American Indians?!?!?!?

.

 

[OKTexas]

Society evolves

Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed

The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society

That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on

So what you are saying is it's written broadly enough to mean nothing and like Scalia said, judges will govern. Unelected judges, that doesn't just scare the hell out of you?

 

[Contumacious]

Society evolves

Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed

The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society

That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on

So what you are saying is it's written broadly enough to mean nothing and like Scalia said, judges will govern. Unelected judges, that doesn't just scare the hell out of you?

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account."

--Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

.

 

[Mustang]

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."
​

Someone should tell him about the 27 Amendments to the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

.

Is that you way of apologizing since your search did not, and could not, find one single Founding Father stating that the Constitution did not apply to blacks, women or American Indians?!?!?!?[/IZE]

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What Madison personally thought back then really does not matter
now. .

No, it doesn't.

What's trendy now? Karl Marx, Food stamps, government supremacy.

.

Tell us what is truly trendy for you,C? Be honest for once.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Society evolves

Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed

The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society

That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on

So what you are saying is it's written broadly enough to mean nothing and like Scalia said, judges will govern. Unelected judges, that doesn't just scare the hell out of you?

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account."

--Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486 .

TJ was pissed that his cousin's SCOTUS derided TJ's concept of a very limited government that took care of the needs of propertied white men.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is that you way of apologizing since your search did not, and could not, find one single Founding Father stating that the Constitution did not apply to blacks, women or American Indians?!?!?!?

.

Seriously.

What are you? 12?

That or more likely the fact he has no case law in support of his errant and subjective opinion.

Consequently, most reactionary libertarians and others on the extreme right resort to a childish temper-tantrum, declare each and every ruling by the Supreme Court ‘wrong,’ up to and including Marbury, and sulk in their idealized contrivance of an American past that never actually existed to begin with.

 

[Erand7899]

I am always surprised by the number of people who trust lawyers enough to casually cede them the power to interpret the United States Constitution any way they want to. Without adherence to original intent, the chief legal document of our nation becomes nothing more than a mere guide for the five lawyers to go by, if they choose to do so. Democrats worry about Republicans, and Republicans worry about Democrats, and both worry whether congress or the administration is going to take down our country. However, when we wake up and find that our cherished freedoms are no more, it will have been a cabal of five lawyers in black robes who did the deed.

The United States Constitution is a legal document. A contract between the federal government, the soverign states, and the people of those states. Contracts are always subject to original intent as the prime legal driver.

What some of you advocate, is similiar to a mortgage contract that establishes a 4% interest rate for the term of 40 years. Ten years into the mortgage, and with mortgage rates at 9%, the mortgage company takes you to court for a better interest rate. After all, shouldn't the contract be interpreted in accordance with the modern standard versus the original intent?

 

[Contumacious]

Is that you way of apologizing since your search did not, and could not, find one single Founding Father stating that the Constitution did not apply to blacks, women or American Indians?!?!?!?

.

Seriously.

What are you? 12?

That or more likely the fact he has no case law in support of his errant and subjective opinion.

Consequently, most reactionary libertarians and others on the extreme right resort to a childish temper-tantrum, declare each and every ruling by the Supreme Court ‘wrong,’ up to and including Marbury, and sulk in their idealized contrivance of an American past that never actually existed to begin with.

Yo fucktard, case law is not the Constitution.

Read the dissenting opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).

.

 

[Antares]

We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.

Speech before the Chamber of Commerce, Elmira, New York (3 May 1907); published in Addresses and Papers of Charles Evans Hughes, Governor of New York, 1906–1908 (1908), p. 139.

 

[Antares]

However, it's interpretation is

You lefties think the US Constitution is there for your personal enjoyment. To be used, twisted or ignored for the sole purpose of personal or political gain.
No reaction is more knee jerk than when you people read "the US Constitution is a limiting document"....

Howso?

The founders never thought their document applied to women and landholders let alone blacks or native Americans

What was their Constituional opinion of the rights of gays?

Of course you can prove this assertion, right?

 

[Contumacious]

I am always surprised by the number of people who trust lawyers enough to casually cede them the power to interpret the United States Constitution any way they want to. Without adherence to original intent, the chief legal document of our nation becomes nothing more than a mere guide for the five lawyers to go by, if they choose to do so. Democrats worry about Republicans, and Republicans worry about Democrats, and both worry whether congress or the administration is going to take down our country. However, when we wake up and find that our cherished freedoms are no more, it will have been a cabal of five lawyers in black robes who did the deed.

The United States Constitution is a legal document. A contract between the federal government, the soverign states, and the people of those states. Contracts are always subject to original intent as the prime legal driver.

exactly.

.