Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

How did he interpret it in his own way in Heller, given that the right to keep and bear arms most certainly is an individual right, which, now, beyond all doubt, as if there ever were any, and there wasn't, cannot be denied by any of the several states either in the face of McDonald v. Chicago (2010)? The latter rested primarily on Heller and Miller, but that has always been understood as there can be no militia if the several states or any of their municipalities can bar the people thereof to keep and bear arms for purposes of the common defense. Obviously, the militia of the Second Amendment cannot be the National Guard or the military of the United States.

LOL!

How obviously stupid and wrong was the contention of the leftist thugs of Chicago?

Answer: As obviously stupid and wrong as a box of rocks.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment is unmistakable. Further, it's intent and purpose is clearly spelled out in the Federalist Papers, the voluminous testimony of the Founders apart from the Federalist Papers, and the stare decisis of the case law that preceded Heller and Chicago: United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886); United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

The only sense in which Heller was a landmark decision was that it emphatically affirmed what has always been understood, what has always been necessarily true, contrary to what nincompoops tried to assert out of thin air in the face of the Republic's historically monolithic avalanche of political and legal testimony. Hence, the Court informed the corrupt Democratic political machine of Chicago that it was not entitled to interpret the Constitution in its own and undeniably new way after all.

As for Citizens United, if corporations are not individuals relative to the protections of the First Amendment than in what sense is any other body of citizens united in a common cause or enterprise not the muzzled or slavish mouthpieces of the state, you Marxist slug? In what sense is the First Amendment not rendered meaningless by such living-document bullshit?
_____________________________________________________


EDIT: had Miller in the wrong place in one sentence when I meant Chicago.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The Constitution is not "civil rights law," moron. Even if it was, legal principles are legal principles. The definition of laws doesn't change after they are passed. If the law says the penalty for grand theft is no more than 5 years, a judge can't "interpret" it later to mean the death penalty.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Oh?

Let's talk about the predictability and insufferable arrogance of your mad-dog statism.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The war "settled it" in practical terms, just as the gun a thug carries settles the matter of whether you should hand over your wallet to him.

All the same "conservatives" who claim the issue of secession is settled also claim Roe v. Wade didn't settle the issue of whether a woman has a right to an abortion.

The fact is the Constitution doesn't mention secession. There is absolutely no basis in the document itself for claiming secession isn't constitutional.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Case law is the product of activist judges, numskull.

 

[bripat9643]

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 -

Only if you're a moron. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment requiring a "well regulated militia" for us to retain the right to own firearms. The clause is purely explanatory. It has no legal force.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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!

That's because lefty doesn't grasp the obvious fact that reality itself is governed by absolute and universal imperatives in the first place, let alone the fact that the Framers did and crafted the Constitution as best as they could to reflect them. Lefty can't see the foundation or the framework for what they are. He thinks the whole damn thing is comprised of non-load-bearing walls subject to removal in response to the latest architectural fad.

 

[bripat9643]

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

No law that Congress passed deserves the credit for the improvement in that statistic.

 

[candycorn]

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.

So you agree that the constitution is a living organism or are your principles that malleable?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

And the Supreme Court was wrong. They changed their tune on that issue only because FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court with hand picked stooges.

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

On those days the alternative, which was starving to death, was far worse.

Child labor ended only because improvements in productivity meant it was no longer a necessity.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong. The idea that a person who is correct about one thing must be correct about everything is an idiotic proposition. Hitler knew that 1+1=2. Does that mean he was correct to invade Poland?

 

[Plasmaball]

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

Case law is the product of activist judges, numskull.

LOL....oh your serious....lol.....hahahahhahahaahahahaahahahaha

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

Case law is the product of activist judges, numskull.

Actually. . . .

Case law, in and of itself, is not a problem. Case law either holds to a legitimate line of stare decisis predicated on the imperatives of constitutional and natural law or it doesn't. The bullshit of leftist judges in virtually every instance, given the fact that their aim is to subvert constitutional and natural law, doesn't.

 

[Mustang]

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

No law that Congress passed deserves the credit for the improvement in that statistic.

Congress doesn't pass laws. Congress passes bills which are either signed into law by the president, or once he vetoes it, the president's veto can be overturned by a 2/3rds vote of Congress.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

then why can we ad to it as a nation?


remember the founders planned it that way?

Remind us the last time an amendment was presented and passed? Then remind us how the left keeps trying to change the meaning of what the Constitution says.

 

[Antares]

Some did, some didn't

Life expectancy was in the low 60s

No law that Congress passed deserves the credit for the improvement in that statistic.

Congress doesn't pass laws. Congress passes bills which are either signed into law by the president, or once he vetoes it, the president's veto can be overturned by a 2/3rds vote of Congress.

Where is your picture of Che?

So....you would contend that the President has the authority to treat the law, any law any way he wishes....I mean just as he has the ACA?

 

[paperview]

then why can we ad to it as a nation?


remember the founders planned it that way?

Remind us the last time an amendment was presented and passed? Then remind us how the left keeps trying to change the meaning of what the Constitution says.

The last Amendment passed was submitted to the States for ratification in September 1789.

It passed in 1992.

 

[OKTexas]

Some did, some didn't

Life expectancy was in the low 60s

No law that Congress passed deserves the credit for the improvement in that statistic.

Congress doesn't pass laws. Congress passes bills which are either signed into law by the president, or once he vetoes it, the president's veto can be overturned by a 2/3rds vote of Congress.

Actually the president is not compelled to act on legislation, he can do nothing and it will become LAW.

 

[bripat9643]

Some did, some didn't

Life expectancy was in the low 60s

No law that Congress passed deserves the credit for the improvement in that statistic.

Congress doesn't pass laws. Congress passes bills which are either signed into law by the president, or once he vetoes it, the president's veto can be overturned by a 2/3rds vote of Congress.

You're splitting hairs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

.

Wow. That one needs more than one of those.



Seriously.

More silly deflection on your part.