Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[Mojo2]

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.

You have shown absolutely NOTHING to give us any assurances that you can be trusted to make such decisions.

The roof can stay just as it is and no one has any worry about being crushed by it.

Borrow some wisdom from the medical profession.

First, do no harm.

These words to Liberals are like a Crucifix to Dracula.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

It is absolutely amazing that our great grandfathers and great grandmothers managed to survive without their lives being managed by government. Aside from that, I believe that tainted food and child labor was legislated by congress, and not by any edict from the supreme court.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Scalia had no problem interpretting the constitution his own way in Heller or Citizen's United.

He interpreted the document correctly. The libturds having a hissy fit because they think the government can limit the First Amendment rights of private citizens are wrong.

...with all the confidence of the moth who says HELL YA!

and then dive bombs into the bug zapper.

Anthony Scalia, on government limiting rights of private citizens Because: First Amendment!

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.
On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):


Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

Also, too:

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

And, finally:


It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in;

but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.
LINK

How ironic that Scalia throws out his own positions stated above when it comes to gay marriage and abortion!

 

[rightwinger]

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!

Sorry.......but that is the dumbest post I have seen in a while

 

[J.E.D]

The libturds are always saying that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

Not quite, but the SC does determine the constitutionality of laws, so....

As far as the Constitution being a living document, well it is. It has been amended to suit changing times and views. Perhaps you've heard of the Bill of Rights? How about the 15th amendment which "prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude"? Should we go back to the days before that amendment because it wasn't originally in the Constitution?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

It is absolutely amazing that our great grandfathers and great grandmothers managed to survive without their lives being managed by government. Aside from that, I believe that tainted food and child labor was legislated by congress, and not by any edict from the supreme court.

Some did, some didn't

Life expectancy was in the low 60s

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

It is absolutely amazing that our great grandfathers and great grandmothers managed to survive without their lives being managed by government. Aside from that, I believe that tainted food and child labor was legislated by congress, and not by any edict from the supreme court.

Some did, some didn't

Life expectancy was in the low 60s

One, the courts opined that regulation was constitutional.

Two, one who ignores the horrors of child labor, such as Erand, can be rightfully ignored as having nothing worthy to consider.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So how do you propose to force judges to think and act the way you want them to?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Scalia is right, and RIGHTWINGER, YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!!

Scalia had no problem interpretting the constitution his own way in Heller or Citizen's United.

He interpreted the document correctly. The libturds having a hissy fit because they think the government can limit the First Amendment rights of private citizens are wrong.

You and others on the right can’t have it both ways; if Scalia interpreted the Constitution correctly with regard to Heller, then he also interpreted the Constitution correctly with regard to Employment Division v. Smith (1990), where Scalia reaffirmed the fact that indeed government has the authority to place limits on religions liberty, and where religious liberty does not excuse disobeying an otherwise just and valid law.

 

[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

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

Thank goodness for the doctrine of judicial review and the interpretive powers of the courts as authorized by the Constitution, otherwise those of us who own guns wouldn’t have the individual right to do so.

 

[ScienceRocks]

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.

These people are seriously arguing for the 18th century. How ******* nuts is that!

 

[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!

Sorry.......but that is the dumbest post I have seen in a while

Only thing you can think of to say?

I guess the truth DOES trump all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The regulations trying to prevent tainted food and ending child labor in no way were unconstitutional and in no way caused irreparable harm to the country.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The regulations trying to prevent tainted food and ending child labor in no way was unconstitutional and in no way caused irreparable harm to the country.

Neither is the nws, noaa, or regulating that we have clean air. Welcome to the 21st century farmer john!

 

[paperview]

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.

It is absolutely amazing that our great grandfathers and great grandmothers managed to survive without their lives being managed by government. Aside from that, I believe that tainted food and child labor was legislated by congress, and not by any edict from the supreme court.

For about the first 50 years of our country, the gov't had control over every able-bodied free white man, (with a few exceptions) over 18 years, to age 45 -- who informed him he had to not only be forced to purchase these items:

"a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack."

-- they had to show up to parade and train and have all the above accoutrements or be subject to fines, or imprisonment.

Some would say that was some pretty tight management.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Nope, of course not. I'm not the one who claims the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court decides it says. I'm also not the one who believes such idiocy, but you are such a moron.

How would you strike down an unconstitutional state law if you didn't have a Supreme Court with the power to say that the Constitution doesn't permit that law to be in place?

We can only assume that the OP and other ignorant conservatives who agree with him believe that there is no such thing as an un-Constitutional state law, that the states have the ‘right’ to violate the civil liberties of the American citizens who just happen to reside within those states, and that the Constitution does not have a Supremacy Clause.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

These people are seriously arguing for the 18th century. How ******* nuts is that!

It’s more a matter of unwarranted fear and willful ignorance.

 

[rightwinger]

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.



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!

Sorry.......but that is the dumbest post I have seen in a while

Only thing you can think of to say?

I guess the truth DOES trump all.

No....I'm serious

That is pretty dumb......watch what happens when I take down this retaining wall.......See? That proves the Constotution should not be interpreted

Dumb is the kindest way I can describe it

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

It is absolutely amazing that our great grandfathers and great grandmothers managed to survive without their lives being managed by government. Aside from that, I believe that tainted food and child labor was legislated by congress, and not by any edict from the supreme court.

This is the problem with such a bizarre and errant perception, as our lives today are not being “managed by government,” in fact, more Americans enjoy greater freedom and liberty today than at any time in our Nation’s history.

It’s understood that you believe “our lives are being managed by government,” but there is no fact or evidence in support of this.

And you are incorrect with regard to solving the problems of food and employment safety, where Congress did enact measures to address those issues, but the measures were subject to court challenges by private business hostile to what they argued were un-Constitutional regulatory policies.

It was the Supreme Court that upheld those reforms as indeed Constitutional.

For example, in US v. Darby (1941), the Supreme Court held that the Fair Labor Standards Act was Constitutional, where Congress was authorized by the Commerce Clause to regulate working conditions of Americans employed by private companies.

 

[OKTexas]

Scalia had no problem interpretting the constitution his own way in Heller or Citizen's United.

He interpreted the document correctly. The libturds having a hissy fit because they think the government can limit the First Amendment rights of private citizens are wrong.

You and others on the right can’t have it both ways; if Scalia interpreted the Constitution correctly with regard to Heller, then he also interpreted the Constitution correctly with regard to Employment Division v. Smith (1990), where Scalia reaffirmed the fact that indeed government has the authority to place limits on religions liberty, and where religious liberty does not excuse disobeying an otherwise just and valid law.

Your sig sums things up nicely, the US Constitution is legal principle that is to be applied by the courts. Judges are there to make sure laws are properly applied, not to interpret them, the language used in their construction determine their meaning.