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 ...
For an example of what those debates were... click here...
Elliot's Debates contain a wealth of information on exactly what the Founders meant. Without having to resort to later judicial activism and reinterpretation.
I never said it was a 'social' contract.
If one reads the assorted treatise and legal writings quoted by the Founders (along with the writing of the Founders themselves) it is plain that the Constitutional contract, formed by the civil entities of the States, created a statutory entity of the United States with express local federal powers and limited national powers.
We couldn't survive if the courts monkeyed around with most legal instruments the way they do with the Constitution.
True, but they can 'monkey' with it all they like. Since anything repugnant to the Constitution is automatically null and void, their 'monkeying' doesn't change the letter or the law of the Constitution, it only tries to confuse it.
Jefferson was frustrated by Marshall's trick in Marbury vs. Madison and the "development" of constitutional law. He expected the Constitution significantly to be amended and even replaced after a generation or so, as say, Virginia's was a few years after his death.
So... do you believe that the 2nd amendment grants an individual the right to be armed? The best security in urban areas is an armed individual..
I believe that the individual has the right to self-defence. and that comes beofre the forming of any government. The means is secondary. but the means must be sufficient.
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.