Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scalia: Let voters rule on individuals' rights - He also says Constitution should be easier to amend
The Ann Arbor News ^ | November 17, 2004 | DAVE GERSHMAN

Posted on 11/21/2004 12:08:57 AM PST by AM2000

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: E Rocc

>> Scalia is extremely sound on the law as written, but IMO he's a little bit too trusting of the whims of the majority. The Framers placed strict limits on what government could do, and made it tough to loosen those limits, with good reason.

I agree. Scalia is way off-base on that one. A difficult amendment process is the hallmark of our Constitution. The problem is not with the amendment process but with one of the amendments, the 17th, which weakened (virtually destroyed) the balance of power. Prior to the 17th the senators were subjects of their individual state legislatures, and could be recalled if they did not follow the whims of their legislatures. After the 17th, all power was consolidated in Washington, leading to legislative and judicial tyranny, which has led to socialism, which has placed our great civilization in danger.


21 posted on 11/21/2004 6:39:35 AM PST by PhilipFreneau (Jesus would never use government surrogates to force the people to "help others".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AM2000

SCALIA is the greatest. My only disagreement with him is that I would NOT wish to see the Constitution more easily amended. Other than that, he is the best.

Oh, and he should listen to his wife more. If you are a strict-constructionist, you should know that it is not necessary to interpret everything as free speech from a constitutional viewpoint. The courts have broadened the meaning of free speech to include various acts, and even pornography, which was not the original intent of the Bill of Rghts. The courts have also ignored some very clear provisions of the Bill of Rights, merely because they were inconvenient to their ideological predilections.

It is good to see someone like Scalia well received in Univ. of Michigan, one of the most liberal places in the land. Notice what the demonstrators were like! The were, first, sneaky. They were, as usual, rude.

They were from the "social work" area, one of the saddest groups around. If they ever finish their studies, they will get paid less than someone with a small lawn-mowing business, and the law-mowing business at least accomplishes something.

I think that it is highly unprofessional for an instructor to lead students in political activity like this, because it sets the stage for favoratism based on the degree of cooperation of his students. If this were sexual harrassment, people would be pointing out that the professor is in a power position, unfairly extorting favors from his underlings. It is the same here: the ones who help stroke the professor in his political activities will get the good grades and recommendations.

That also explains why leftism gets entrenched in many areas: conservative academics have an uphill struggle even to survive long enough to get tenured.


22 posted on 11/21/2004 6:44:10 AM PST by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AM2000

EEEEEEKKKK!!! Don't mess with the Constitution!


23 posted on 11/21/2004 6:46:51 AM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AM2000
...they kept their protest signs hidden in backpacks...

Security is so lax that backpacks are being permitted into this kind of venue? I'm sure the enemy has noted that with interest...

24 posted on 11/21/2004 6:51:35 AM PST by JimRed (Investigate, overturn and prosecute vote fraud; turn more counties red!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AM2000

No it SHOULDN'T. It's like this for certain and I don't want it to change. We will turn into Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia if it is changed.


25 posted on 11/21/2004 6:52:43 AM PST by JOE43270 (JOE43270 America voted and said we are One Nation Under God with Liberty and Justice for All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AM2000

Scalia said that's why he supports the death penalty and believes abortion shouldn't have become legal by the court's ruling in 1973.



Something tells me Scalia didn't phrase it this way. Roe did "make abortion legal." It prevented states from making it illegal during the early term of pregnancy.


26 posted on 11/21/2004 7:29:19 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deaconjim
Better to fight the judicial activism than to live with amendments that were too hastily passed.

Better a public debate and vote on an amendment that grants explicitly limited power than to end up with something like that steaming pile of socialist sophistry we refer to in polite company as the New Deal Commerce Clause.

27 posted on 11/21/2004 7:41:02 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AM2000
in the past 40 years a majority of the high court has interpreted the Constitution to create rights

The high court re-interperted the Constitution. The Supreme Court serves to judge the constitutionality of all other law by comparing that law to the Constitution. The Constitution is the reference upon which all other law is compared and a reference is not subject to re-interpertation.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

28 posted on 11/21/2004 7:42:01 AM PST by MosesKnows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: orangelobster
"Seems to me that if it was easier to amend it would look like some kind of unrecognizable frankenstein monster in another hundred years"

It would be like California with all their stupid Props.
I still can not get over how Californians were so stupid as to vote for all that tax money going to stem cell research.

Maybe there is something I missed.
29 posted on 11/21/2004 7:51:02 AM PST by AlexW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AM2000
But they'd only be able to redefine it in states where they actually have a majority

That's precisely how the system is supposed to work now. The problem is the judges, not the Constitution. The judges need to be yanked, the constitution needs no change.
30 posted on 11/21/2004 6:48:55 PM PST by w6ai5q37b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson