Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (Photo: Stephen Masker)
Posted on 01/04/2011 2:50:43 PM PST by NYer
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (Photo: Stephen Masker)
January 4, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a recent interview with California Lawyer, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated that abortion is not included in the U.S. Constitution.
Scalia, who is opposed to the notion of an “evolving” or “living” Constitution, told interviewer Calvin Massey that by giving some of the “necessarily broad” provisions of the Constitution an “evolving meaning,” these provisions fail to do their job, which is to put in place limitations on what society can or cannot do.
Even if “the current society has come to different views [than the original framers],” he said, “you do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society.”
Instead, he said, when something isn’t found in the Constitution, it should be taken up by legislators. One of the examples that he used to illustrate this point was abortion.
“You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law.
“That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.”
While Scalia said that sometimes Constitutional interpretation can be difficult, especially when the intent of the original framers isn’t clear, he said that some issues are abundantly clear, such as whether or not there is a constitutional right to abortion.
“I do not pretend that originalism is perfect,” he said. “There are some questions you have no easy answer to, and you have to take your best shot.
“We don’t have the answer to everything, but by God we have an answer to a lot of stuff ... especially the most controversial: whether the death penalty is unconstitutional, whether there’s a constitutional right to abortion, to suicide, and I could go on.”
The 74-year-old jurist, who was appointed to the high court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, made similar remarks in November, when he told those present at a University of Richmond luncheon that the idea of a living Constitution has allowed “five out of nine hotshot lawyers to run the country.”
At the time Scalia said that the high court distorted the meaning of “due process” (referring to legal procedure) in the 14th Amendment to invent new rights under a “made up” concept of “substantial due process.” That, he said, has allowed the 14th Amendment to become the gateway to legal abortion and other behaviors, which the constitutional authors never intended and viewed as criminal.
**********************************
I agree, which is why I believe that they only way to address this problem is a constitutional amendment. If we rely on "states rights" the murder of the unborn will likely continue.
Should a state be allowed to permit the killing of persons who engage in criminal mischief (vandalism) against other people's property during the night time? In some state, such a homicide would be regarded as murder. In at least one state, it would likely be regarded as praiseworthy.
I see no Constitutional basis for the federal government preventing states from writing a prohibition against abortion with so many loopholes as to be essentially ineffective, nor any basis by which it could prevent states from forbidding abortion except in cases where it was necessary to prevent the imminent and certain death of the mother. Just as different states have the authority to impose different requirements for homicide to be considered justifiable, so to with abortion.
Does he really think this a Democracy If he does think it is a democracy Do you trust this jackwad: Scalia ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
and not a Constitutional Republic.
he does not deserve to be on the court.
I'm not saying such a rule would necessarily be a good idea, but it would remove a an abortionist's incentive to declare "risk to the mother" when little such risk actually exists.
I knew you might check in with that quote. Good to see you Uri’el, either I’ve not been paying attention or you’ve been missing, I suspect the former.
Always enjoy the paintings, yours, right? ...and of course, the dawgs, can’t be without them.
Blessings,
BC
Bless you and yours for your concern.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachThe wife and I just relocated to Taos New Mexico.
We have been among the missing.
>> So what’s the distinction
Legal killing is not murder.
Humor me. Couldn’t a case be made, for instance, for treating the murder of a pregnant woman as a double homicide?
Yes, that is what it sounds as though he’s saying.
And also, at the time the Constitution was written and signed, those men would never have been able to envision a time when (a) a SCOTUS would force a “right to abortion” on the country or (b) people would have become so degraded that illicit sex and abortion were considered normal and proper.
All of what you say is true and it is an innocent life... it is all of those things that you say that it is... and it is murder.
LLS
“I agree, which is why I believe that they only way to address this problem is a constitutional amendment. If we rely on “states rights” the murder of the unborn will likely continue.”
Prospects for doing that in this country which elected Obama is very, very low.
Attacking the Constitution because it is over 200 years old.....
I have a question:
How old are the Ten Commandments?????
Those don’t seem to be in need of changing.
Actually, it's a representative republic, but other than that, he's right.
Sack the judges.
but were to forbid paying for one (either directly or indirectly)?
******************************************************
Unworkable ,, take blood for instance ,, the powers that be had it declared an organ making it illegal to be sold ,, stupid people give it away for free thinking the “non-profit” that receives and distributes it is some kind of charity... existing only for the public good ... in reality the hospitals don’t pay for the blood but pay to have it delivered and pay a ridiculous amount (10 to 20 times cost) for testing of the blood... in the end having an open market where the sellers were paid would increase the supply , save lives and be much more equitable.
>> Humor me.
You’re right. The law is inconstant.
And in that order. The "pro-choice" crowd think their liberty (i.e. freedom from self-centered, demanding babies) and the pursuit of happiness (the happiness of the mother, of course) take precedence over the life of the child. But the order is important. First life, then liberty, then happiness. Liberty trumps happiness, life trumps liberty. Remember that, and difficult issues like abortion become much more clear.
But it is not law...
Simply not true. It is not “enacted” law.
But it is part of the organic law of the United States.
United States laws are broken up and reported in the volumes, The Statutes at Large.
Currently, we are up to about the 125th volume, each one corresponding to a two year session of the house.
I have all of them in PDF format. It took two weeks to download the entire collection.
After the introductions and dedications by various delegates, after the tables and maps and list of chapters, Volume One of the United States Statutes at large, page 1, starts as follows:
When in the course of human events...
This is detailed over the first three pages.
Pages 4-9 are the Articles of Confederation.
Pages 10-19 are the original, unamended Constitution.
Pages 20-23 are the first 12 Amendments
***********************************
Agreed. It's shocking, what our culture has become.
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.