Posted on 04/19/2010 4:51:52 AM PDT by ml/nj
Supreme Court Justice and former University Law professor Antonin Scalia spoke at the Law School Friday to present the 12th annual speech within the Henry J. Abraham Distinguished Lectures Series, which is sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression.
...
In his lecture, Scalia discussed the merits of originalism as a method of constitutional interpretation. The originalist approach, he said, views the Constitution as no different from any other legal text, such as a statute.
“That is to say, the Constitution has a static meaning that does not change from generation to generation,” though its provisions can be applied to new situations, he said, such as the prosecution of libel when disseminated over the radio or the Internet.
Originalism thus focuses on determining the original meaning ascribed to the Constitution, Scalia said.
“To begin with, I deny the premise that law has nothing to do with historical inquiry,” he said.
This inquiry must be conducted in collaboration with lexicographers to determine the historical meaning of words and phrases such as “bear arms,” Scalia said. In addition, scholars also must establish a broader historical context, partly by examining other contemporary legal precedents, including the English Bill of Rights and state constitutions.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at cavalierdaily.com ...
hint hint...natural born citizen as intended by the Founders.
Wahoo-wah!
ML/NJ
ping
Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama’s skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa.
Man- I would luv to have a transcript of his speech.....
What about the very recent exchange between Justice Thomas and a NY Rep who is Puerto Rican descent about NBC. It was on attorney Mario Apuzzo’s web site.
Someone needs to put the picture of Alito at the SOTU speech mouthing “You Lie.”
I don’t think Scalia is on the evading team???
“That is to say, the Constitution has a static meaning that does not change from generation to generation,” though its provisions can be applied to new situations, he said, such as the prosecution of libel when disseminated over the radio or the Internet.
...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. 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.
Justice Scalia, concurring opinion, Raich
______________________________________
At least one legal scholar is citing Scalia's opinion in defending Obamacare from a constitutional challenge. Charles Fried, Solicitor General 1985-1989 and Harvard Law professor on Greta Van Susteren, 04/14/2010:
______________________________________
FRIED:The statute which I have front of me, I bothered to read it, says that the health insurance industry is an $854 billion dollar industry. That sounds like commerce.
The Supreme Court just five years ago with Justice Scalia in the majority said that it is all right under the Commerce Clause to make it illegal for California for residents in California to grow pot for their own use, because that has affect on interstate commerce.
Well, if that has affect on interstate commerce, what happens in an $854 billion national industry certainly does.
-snip-
FRIED: I daresay that, because I looked at that 2005 lawsuit about the pot in California. If somebody growing pot in their basement is interstate commerce and Scalia said so, I don't know where you are going to get five votes the other way.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591103,00.html
Just so we're clear on who Scalia is, he's the guy who said to Allan Favish, "You've just demonstrated some foot faults. Who cares," in regard to Allan's Freedom of Information case seeking access to evidence concerning the death of Vincent Foster. (Dec 2003)
I was there. I felt like jumping up and yelling, "Et tu Brute?" but the I knew the Supreme Court goons would have squashed me like a bug, free speech notwithstanding.
ML/NJ
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.