Posted on 05/05/2005 3:22:31 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative
May 5, 2005 – Criticizing those who believe the Constitution should be flexible and adapted to modern times, Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Thursday during a speech at Texas A&M University that there is no such thing “as the living Constitution.”
Scalia was speaking as part of the Twanna M. Powell Lecture at the George Bush Presidential Conference Center.
“I’m what you call an ‘originalist,’ one who believes the Constitution should be interpreted exactly as it was adopted,” Scalia added.
“It should be interpreted as it was written – nothing more, nothing less. Rights do not grow smaller or larger. Some legal experts say you have to interpret the Constitution broadly, but that’s not true under any circumstance.”
Scalia, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan, added, “You hear the phrase ‘the living Constitution’ and that it’s a ‘living’ document. I’m a believer in the dead Constitution. Maybe we should better phrase it ‘the enduring Constitution.
“The Constitution is not a living document. It’s a legal document, and legal documents do not change.”
Scalia said that such controversial subjects as the death penalty and abortion are really not Constitutional issues “because there’s not one word about them in the Constitution. People who believe in a living Constitution would like to see such things as un-Constitutional.”
The Constitution, he added, does exactly what it’s supposed to do: “It provides stability,” he said.
Bush , when introducing Scalia, said that he “was a free spirit and deep thinker. He shares his views openly, and he is certainly thought-provoking.”
Among the overflow crowd to hear Scalia were members of the Texas Supreme Court, the Fifth Court of Circuit Appeals and numerous federal and state judges.
A native of Trenton, N.J., Scalia graduated from Harvard Law School and was a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University. He was also a law professor at the University of Virginia and the University of Chicago and visiting law professor at Stanford and Georgetown. He served the federal government as General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications Policy and was appointed judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia in 1982.
He and his wife, Maureen, have nine children.
Scalia, who was approved as a Supreme Court justice by a vote of 98-0, said such approval “would never happen today. Congress wants moderates and a moderate interpretation of the Constitution. The ‘living’ Constitution idea is seductive to the man on the street, and even to some judges.
“But we must apply the words as they were originally written and we must be bound by their original meaning. We must think of what the words are and what the words meant when the people adopted them.
“The Constitution doesn’t ‘morph’ to be what we want it to be.”
Scalia said if there were one change he could make to the Constitution, it would be to make amendments to it an easier process.
“Amendments are not easy to do,” he added.
“They must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. But someone figured out that with the population disparity of states today, only two percent of the total population could prevent an amendment from being passed. It’s very difficult to get an amendment passed.”
“The Constitution is not a living document. It’s a legal document, and legal documents do not change.”
Now, if we could just get the libs to understand this.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
(boldface added for clarity)
That's why the Constitution has a provision to change it by amendment - not by interpretation.
Algore is unconstitutional.
"Legal documents do not change".
Exactly. It's like a divorce. Ten years later a spouse comes back and says, "Yes, I signed it, but I changed my mind. I believe our decree is a living document. So I want all your share of the investments and give me back the Spode china."
To be deprived of "life, liberty,or property without due process of law"...so this is to say that with due process of law, then one could be deprived of life, liberty, and due property?
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
What question about the death penalty does that raise for you?
Yes, indeed. As does the other boldfaced clause.
Clearly the death penalty was an expected aspect of "capital trials." Capital punishment means "you lose your head." Therefore, in Amendment 5, "...be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." and "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property" we are clearly discussing capital punishment. To argue that capital punishment is cruel and unusual would be to assume that Amendment 5 did not address the punishments of the day, and therefore, would be revisionist.
None. The death penalty is constitutional by my reading of that amendment.
The first provision is about double jeopardy. So the federal government can only kill someone once under that provision. It's irrelevant to the death penalty.
The second provision actually allows the federal government to deprive people of all those things WITH due process of law.
The second is the only one of the two that MIGHT tangentially touch on the death penalty--and then because it PERMITS it.
How does that square with the idea that orginally man/men were white, male and over 21?
I believe the other references of the laws that referenced the Black Men/Women were superceded by the passing of the Emancipation Proclomantion and the Civil War. Men /Women are referenced as Men/Women regardless of their race.
I wish I knew who said this, but I've heard that "liberals want to prove the Constitution is a living document by killing it."
And you interpret the actual words. It's not written in poetry. The words mean what they say. But justices go by their own biases because they are human. That's why we need more conservatives.
Fine unless they're "interpreting" rights never fathomed by the founders . . .
Oops I misread your post. Disregard my last response to you. Sorry.
Char...over here.
FMCDH(BITS)
Music to my ears!
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.