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 ...
You can go back to the kitchen and get the turkey club, because I am certian that's what Scalia is wanting for lunch.
Statements like that will soon find you without friends or on a truck ride to a mental hospital.
So remind me again, Justice Scalia, how putting people in jail for the noncommercial cultivation and use of marijuana in California by California residents for medical purposes as allowed by California law comes within Congress's power to "regulate commerce ... among the several states." Unless you were an advocate of the "argument of flexibility" and the idea that the Constitution "has to change with society like a living organism," you would have to be an idiot to believe that the Necessary and Proper Clause somehow allows Congress to also regulate noncommercial intrastate activity with no substantial effect on interstate commerce, no?
"The founders did not anticipate the Judiciary taking on "Judicial Review" and turning it into Judicial activism. "
Antifederalist papers warned about the kind of shenanigans we have going on now.
Thanks for the link.
There's another destructive twist of words by government.
The Founders believed in following the Law of Nations ...a totally different animal than International Law.
Thats interesting what you posted. Scalia is often viewed by both the left and the right as a huge Federalist. He is really not. Scalia's views on this were known before he was on the court. He once aired his view that once AMericans signed on the the new deal legislation that in many ways they made a descision to alter the whole concept of Federalism. He is still sympathetic to the Federalist camp but he is not a Rehquist or Thomas on this issue
Back in Cromwell's day. they wrote a constitution. It was called the "Instrument of Government." The federal constitution is a legal instrument, a document to establish and define the powers of government. It is flexible, but it is not "alive,"
Scalia embraced that example of a living Constitution (and then some):
"Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce." (from Raich)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-1454
The big surprise for me was that in an AOL poll today (AOL not known for being anywhere near conservative)70percent agreed with Scalia! Maybe the libs just are not up this early to skew this poll yet.
Well I can see Scalias point in alot of ways. His argument is what about the ballot box. In this instance he is referring usually to the amendment process. Even though the commerce clause plays a role in the living Const debate I dont think its at the heart of it. In many ways Scalia is right. THe NEw Deal legislation created a change in AMerican Govt and the American people endorsed it.. I can see his point there. Thats the reason why the court is so hesitant to go very beyond their lopez Cae that was decided in the 90's. In the future I expect the court to take very small baby steps to remind the Congress that their power is not unlimited. But we will never go back to a pre-1930 version of the relationship between State and Federal power.
I think he was saying it in the sense that he was responding to accusations made about him. So and so says "Scalia this, yadda yadda" and he responds in third person to make the point.
The Commerce Clause (coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause) is central to the debate. Just about every Federal program from the New Deal and Great Society on is based on such an expansive view-- welfare, health care, gun control legislation, education etc.
In many ways Scalia is right. THe NEw Deal legislation created a change in AMerican Govt
You make my point. It bypassed the Amendment process.
and the American people endorsed it.
What does popular endorsement have to do with adherence to the original meaning of the Constitution?
It probably was that, but it is still kind of funny to think of him always talking in the third person.
----and the American people endorsed it.
==== What does popular endorsement have to do with adherence to the original meaning of the Constitution?
Technically, the only way the people could have endorsed it would have been to allow Congress and the States to ratify an amendment. Anything short of that is "looking the other way" at best and holds no legal tender.
Is it constitutionally okay for judges to rule that homosexual "activity"(sex) is not their right, but instead the homos have to get government permit? Perhaps, the Department of Homosexual Activity that monitors and issues licenses for approved homosexuals... good god! lol
Yes and they deliberately made it a very difficult process to "try" to prevent a short term political whim becoming an amendment. Not perfect but better than other countries.
I think that post can be filed under "People Unclear On the Concept" (of the job of judges).
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.