Posted on 02/15/2006 7:37:53 AM PST by neverdem
PONCE, Puerto Rico (AP) -- People who think the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.
In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Justice Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution "as it was originally written and intended."
"Scalia does have a philosophy; it's called originalism. That's what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do," Justice Scalia told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory.
He said that, according to his judicial philosophy, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.
Justice Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."
"That's the argument of flexibility, and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old, and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break.
"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Justice Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."
Proponents of the living Constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court."
"They are not looking for legal flexibility; they are looking for rigidity. Whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said.
Justice Scalia was invited to Puerto Rico by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. The organization was founded in 1982 as a debating society by students who...
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Ohhhhh yeah. They did that.
Far be it from me to offer my agreement with Justice Scalia, he doesn't need my approval. But, of course he is totally correct. It's the Constitution not a Honey-do list that my wifes sticks to fridge, and changes daily, where she lets me know it's time to paint the dining room green or throw out the trash.
If we don't like what the Constitution say we can just shop aroud until we find a foreign law that says what we like.
It's all the same.
No. If the founders had wanted to Constitution to be able to "change with the times" they would have included provisions for amending the document EASILY ANY TIME. Instead they made it DIFFICULT to ammend.
Understand now?
The founders realized that the constitution is the basis for our laws and government, and therefore, should not be subject to whim.
As an engineer, I see an interesting relationship between the number of years a Congressman holds office, the number a President does, and the number a Senator does...in addition to the number of years a Justice does.
Congress is reactionary, the Presidency is a little less. The Senate, which used to be assigned by the states, even less, and the judiciary even less. The one thing that changes the slowest is the Constitution. By its nature, an amendment takes years to pass and requires more than one Congress (except in rare instances of great urgency).
The founders did not anticipate the Judiciary taking on "Judicial Review" and turning it into Judicial activism.
More important than an amendment to ban abortion or gay marriage, would be an amendment to ban judicial activism.
So he really did speak in the 3rd person? He is right, but I struggle to take anyone seriously who talks like that. Seems like that would drive the other justices insane. "Scalia thinks this is unconstitutional. Scalia will be writing a dissent."
"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Justice Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."
You've got my vote, Scalia.
Maybe Scalia's been hanging with Bob Dole lately.
Or Ricky Henderson.
If the founding fathers believed that the words changed meanings over the years and that the Constitution would mean something different tomorrow than it does today, they would not have bothered to write it down.
By making the Constitution transparently malleable, then 5 Supreme Court Justices could effectively take over the country.
Hear! Hear!
Godd stuff..........next we need to have something for "We're a Democracy crapola".......which is one the furthest things our founding fathers intended us to be.
"Scalia will take the turkey club with a side of fries."
The 3rd person rocks!
I usually think of Seinfeld and "The Jimmy" episode where the guy at the gym always talks in the third person and then George adopts it too. "George is getting upset!"
What would happen if these same people were actually allowed to change it? The selfish criminals in our government have been trying to rewrite it for years now. Thank God they were only able to weaken it so far!
Thanks for the link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.