Posted on 02/27/2006 12:16:31 PM PST by JZelle
He's ba-a-a-ck. Not that he ever really goes away. After all, he has life tenure. This time the Hon. Antonin Scalia was calling those of us who think of the Constitution of the United States as a living document "idiots." No, this wasn't Ann Coulter doing her stand-up routine, but rather an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Welcome to civil discourse, 21st century-style. A decent respect for those who hold to a different philosophy of law, or of anything else, now seems to have gone the way of powdered wigs, dress swords and chivalry in general. This time Justice Scalia was caught talking out of school, or rather his courtroom, at a meeting of the Federalist Society down in Puerto Rico -- although his formal opinions are scarcely more temperate. His subject on this occasion: The idea of a living Constitution and why it's wrong, wrong, wrong. Mr. Justice Scalia summed up the idea before dismissing it as idiotic. "That's the argument of flexibility," he explained, "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."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Or not written it at all. If it only means what the current Supreme Court at any time wants it to mean, we don't need it. We only need the current SC of that time to make decisions based on their own feelings.
Would the "living Constitution" supporters be willing to have their nightmare version of a Republican president and his Supreme Court determine what the meaning of the Constitution is at their whim? However, at that point they would probably insist on the sacredness of Supreme Court precedent - kind of "Living Constitution, permanently engraved rulings".
...This time the Hon. Antonin Scalia was calling those of us who think of the Constitution of the United States as a living document "idiots."...
And as usual, he's right.
Nam Vet
The first amendment freedom of the press was written in a time when newpapers were printed one sheet at a time, not on huge superfast "assault" presses. And it applied only to printing presses - not to anything associated with Ben Franklin's lightning like radio, television or the internet. < /sarcasm of mass destruction>
"Its dead, Jim".
By writing his lame-brained article, Mr. Greenberg has convinced me of a few things: 1) Mr. Greenberg is not a constitutional scholar. 2) Mr. Greenberg is not a judge. 3) Mr. Greenberg is a complete a$$. 4) Mr. Greenberg is an idiot. 5) Mr. Greenberg needs to go back in history and study what the constitution is, and what it says-not what he wants it to say. 6) Mr. Greenberg is a moron. 7) Justice Scalia was correct in his statement about folks saying the constitution is a "living document" being idiots.
definitely need to read this
For the most part, they are the same people.
That's just fancy language for the amendment process. It's not the document that's "living", it's our democratic republic. Else the "strict constructionists" would have a hard time reconciling that women and Blacks have equal rights..
Nevertheless, they will steadfastly maintain that notion until their last, dying breath.
Hhmmm...Which might not be such a bad idea!
No, the author makes it quite clear he is talking about something in addition to amending the Constitution.
with all respects to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, the man who should have gotten that post was Nino!
I think everybody can agree on that. What we disagree on is the method of change. They want judicial fiat where a few people have the power to change it, we want the amendment process as the Founders so wisely included in the Constitution.
Considering the way in which Roberts beat the Senators, could you imagine if Scalia had a confirmation hearing? Fat Ted would have been crying for his mommy on C-Span.
Well, peoples' views do change over time. Privacy is one issue that has gained more importance as the methods of invading one's "personal affects" has multiplied with technology.
But the fact that the Founders left an amendment process means they anticipated that things were not going to remain static in this country.
Hunting is not protected in the constitution....GUNS ARE!
the second amendment is about protection from tyranny from within and without of our nation.
"Most restrictions are state imposed, and it is harder to argue that states have no right to regulate the use of guns."
".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed......"
"Supremem law of the Land", "Shall not be infringed", ect... still mean now what they meant back then despite judicial misinterpretations and outright unConstitutional laws that have been penned since then.
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.