Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[JakeStarkey]

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?

You are comparing contract law with civil rights law?

The heavens laugh at you.

 

[Sunshine]

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."​

He's absolutely correct. The Constitution IS a legal document. And it trumps a whole lot of other legal documents. Nothing to argue with here.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

You probably get comfort knowing that five lawyers, in black robes, are the safeguard of our liberty and our property. That is sophmoric nonsense!

The Constitution is the safeguard of our liberty and our property. We have a judiciary to ensure that the Constitution is safeguarded.

When the Constitution, the contract between the federal government, the soverign states, and the people, needs updating or altered, than all affected parties to the contract need to concur in those changes. We do not need, nor can we trust, a majority of nine men in black robes to decide what is best for the rest of us.

 

[Votto]

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."​

It's like Justice Roberts declaring that Obamacare is Unconstitutional.....and then in the end when it matters finding a way to support those who subvert the Constitution.

 

[Sunshine]

Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself

himself*

Yeah, right. He has read the Constitution! NOT!

We fought a war that settled that question about secession once and for all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

No, that’s not what he’s saying.

And because your description of the situation is incorrect, there’s nothing to be ‘scared’ of with regard to the judiciary.

In theory, and ideally, if Congress, the states, and local jurisdictions enacted laws and measures that comported with the Constitution and its case law, there’d be little need for the courts or judges.

However that’s not the case.

Unfortunately Congress, the states, and local jurisdictions enact laws and measures that are repugnant to the Constitution, that violate the civil liberties of American citizens living in those offending jurisdictions, where the only recourse afforded to citizens adversely effected is to seek relief in the Federal courts, up to and including the Supreme Court.

Indeed, if anyone is to be ‘scared’ of anything it should be the states and local jurisdictions who seek to violate citizens’ civil liberties, where their only hope of realizing their civil rights is in the courts, courts that fairly and consistently administer the law in accordance with the rule of law, as required by Constitutional jurisprudence.

If you and others on the right wish to see the Federal courts less involved in our daily lives, then admonish the states and other jurisdictions to obey the Constitution and its case law.

 

[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.

You probably get comfort knowing that five lawyers, in black robes, are the safeguard of our liberty and our property. That is sophmoric nonsense!

The Constitution is the safeguard of our liberty and our property. We have a judiciary to ensure that the Constitution is safeguarded.

When the Constitution, the contract between the federal government, the soverign states, and the people, needs updating or altered, than all affected parties to the contract need to concur in those changes. We do not need, nor can we trust, a majority of nine men in black robes to decide what is best for the rest of us.

Assumptions make you look silly.

The point is that we have for a VERY long time been at the mercy of judicial interpreters.

 

[bonehead]

Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself

well, Abraham Lincoln didn't disagree with that right. his emancipation proclamation only covered the areas controlled by the federal government. he knew he could not control the rest.

 

[Sunshine]

Scalia says we need to go back to original intent...what is missing from this equation?

Oringinal Intenders?

Did the three laws of motion stop because Newton died?

'Intent' in the Constitution is just a matter of opinion itself. When the framers said in the 1st amendment that the freedom of the press can't be abridged,

did they intend that to be absolute?

And there are only 9 people whose opinion matters. Scalia is one of them, you are not.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

 

[Plasmaball]

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).

.

wow..Case law, the one thing the right hates more than an activist judge

 

[Political Junky]

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

The Constitution was not "written broadly." If you want to change what it says, it allows for amendments. the Supreme Court was not given the job of redefining what it says. Those redefinitions have nothing to do with any "needs of the 21st Century." They are simply the result of subversives attempting to implement their anti-American agenda.

OK then

A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed


In the absence of a well regulated militia, you have no right to own a gun

Exactly -

 

[Sunshine]

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.

You probably get comfort knowing that five lawyers, in black robes, are the safeguard of our liberty and our property. That is sophmoric nonsense!

The Constitution is the safeguard of our liberty and our property. We have a judiciary to ensure that the Constitution is safeguarded.

When the Constitution, the contract between the federal government, the soverign states, and the people, needs updating or altered, than all affected parties to the contract need to concur in those changes. We do not need, nor can we trust, a majority of nine men in black robes to decide what is best for the rest of us.

There have been plenty of turf wars between the 3 branches of government. The 3 branches overlap a little because if they didn't the country would be in gridlock 100% of the time. But the SCOTUS won it's turf interpreting the law in Marberry v Madison.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.

Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There CCDimwit. There's your 'case law.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

You probably get comfort knowing that five lawyers, in black robes, are the safeguard of our liberty and our property. That is sophmoric nonsense!

The Constitution is the safeguard of our liberty and our property. We have a judiciary to ensure that the Constitution is safeguarded.

When the Constitution, the contract between the federal government, the soverign states, and the people, needs updating or altered, than all affected parties to the contract need to concur in those changes. We do not need, nor can we trust, a majority of nine men in black robes to decide what is best for the rest of us.

And this is ignorant nonsense.

Judges and justices rule in accordance with established and settled precedent and case law, where for judges those decisions are subject to further judicial review.

As a conservative your hostility toward judicial review is predicated on partisanism, not an objective understanding of the judicial process.

 

[westwall]

Keep your posts on topic please.

 

[paperview]

Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself

himself*

Yeah, right. He has read the Constitution! NOT!

We fought a war that settled that question about secession once and for all.

Take it up with the OP.

He's the one who thinks there is a right of secession.

Perhaps you didn't understand the point I was making.

 

[Mojo2]

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

Watch what happens when you start altering the construction according to YOUR whims without taking into account what is needed to maintain structural integrity.

Dramatic moment garage falls onto builder after he knocks down supporting wall without removing roof first | Mail Online

The Constitution was designed to maintain the structural integrity of our nation and screwing around with it will undoubtedly result in this kind of result (see the linked video).


It's a typical result from Liberals. Unanticipated consequences and unforeseen results.
And we all know the Liberal's pattern.

IRVING KRISTOL: If you had asked any liberal in 1960, we are going to pass these laws, these laws, these laws, and these laws, mentioning all the laws that in fact were passed in the 1960s and ‘70s, would you say crime will go up, drug addiction will go up, illegitimacy will go up, or will they get down? Obviously, everyone would have said, they will get down. And everyone would have been wrong.

Now, that’s not something that the liberals have been able to face up to.

They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.

Silt 3.0: Baby It's Cold Outside (first half)

So, bottom line, the Libs want to screw around with the Constitution, without concern that it may cause permanent irreparable harm to the country and they have no way to fix it or return it to it's previous state.

Get the **** outta here with your crazy, reckless, half-baked, irresponsibly shitty ideas!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dramatic moment garage falls onto builder after he knocks down supporting wall without removing roof first | Mail Online

False derivative analogy.

The right regulations keep the roof from collapsing on the rest of us.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

You probably get comfort knowing that five lawyers, in black robes, are the safeguard of our liberty and our property. That is sophmoric nonsense!

The Constitution is the safeguard of our liberty and our property. We have a judiciary to ensure that the Constitution is safeguarded.

When the Constitution, the contract between the federal government, the soverign states, and the people, needs updating or altered, than all affected parties to the contract need to concur in those changes. We do not need, nor can we trust, a majority of nine men in black robes to decide what is best for the rest of us.

Assumptions make you look silly.

The point is that we have for a VERY long time been at the mercy of judicial interpreters.

Yes, you are correct, we have been at their mercy, and still are. But, that does not mean that we have to buy into that idea as the proper way of doing it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You probably get comfort knowing that five lawyers, in black robes, are the safeguard of our liberty and our property. That is sophmoric nonsense!

The Constitution is the safeguard of our liberty and our property. We have a judiciary to ensure that the Constitution is safeguarded.

When the Constitution, the contract between the federal government, the soverign states, and the people, needs updating or altered, than all affected parties to the contract need to concur in those changes. We do not need, nor can we trust, a majority of nine men in black robes to decide what is best for the rest of us.

Assumptions make you look silly.

The point is that we have for a VERY long time been at the mercy of judicial interpreters.

Yes, you are correct, we have been at their mercy, and still are. But, that does not mean that we have to buy into that idea as the proper way of doing it.

The old ways of tainted food and child laborers were not the correct way, either.