[BenLurkin]

When someone says that the Constitution is a "living documents", what they really mean is that it is dead.

[butternut_squash_bisque]

God help me, but I detest, despise and hate this leftist filth.

[RobbyS]

Scalia is right. The "living Constitution" crowd reminds me of the "Spirit of Vatican II" crowd. What is in writing does not support their aims, so they talk endlessly about the "spirit" of the words.

[SmithL]

Of course the Constitution can evolve as times and society change. That's exactly what the Amendment process is for.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Greenberg obviously is an idiot!

[dead]

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."

Waaaahhh! He called us a name!

I would imagine being called an idiot is a relatively common event in the world of Paul Greenberg.

Living things radically transform even when the only variable is time. The Constitution changes when you follow the proscribed and rigorous procedures designed to alter the document. It doesn't age or mature or learn or grow on its own.

[Leatherneck_MT]

People who say that the Constitution is a Living Document ARE idiots.

[dead]

The Constitution of the United States is a masterwork of the plastic art of jurisprudence, subject to different interpretations at different times.

According to Greenberg, they might just as well have written the document on a chalkboard.

[DrNo]

Paul Greenberg is a nationally syndicated columnist communist.

What's that old saying?

It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear to be an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[Verginius Rufus]

Antonin Scalia is so smart that almost everyone he meets must appear to be an idiot. I saw him on C-SPAN a few days ago and in the Q & A part he was easily making mincemeat of his questioners.

Paul Greenberg is a good guy--in fact I think he's the one who first tagged Bill Clinton with the "Slick Willie" nickname. He was writing columns denouncing Clinton back when most people had barely heard of Clinton. But nobody's right all the time.

[Tzimisce]

So the Constitution should live and breath with the times?

Okay, I think Journalists have WAY TOO MUCH freedom when it comes to printing stupid articles like this one. I say we ban the publications of stuff like this.

Freedom of the Press is an ancient idea 200 years dead anyway....

[KarlInOhio]

Would you buy a house if the bank wanted you to sign a "living mortgage"? Would you lease a car from a dealer who wanted you to sign a "living lease"? Would you even play cards against someone who insisted on playing "living poker rules" which only he could interpret? If you wouldn't do any of these three, why would you ever want a "living Constitution"?

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".

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...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]

Another leftist author with the I.Q. and reasoning ability as a bag of hammers. I am a real estate broker and you can bet your sweet bippy that the meaning of a real estate contract does not change unless there is a specific term(s) specifying EXACTLY how it does.

Nam Vet

[Sarastro]

Washington Times? Had to reread several times to make sure it wasn't Washington Post.

[geezerwheezer]

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.

[jeremiah]

definitely need to read this

[Vaquero]

with all respects to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, the man who should have gotten that post was Nino!

[antiRepublicrat]

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.

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.

[Dead Corpse]

It can change. It's called the Amendment process. Otherwise, it stays exactly as it is. Scalia is dead on and should be lauded for saying so. Simple judicial activism, or even wrongly passed legislation, does not change the meaning.

"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.