Posted on 11/08/2012 6:36:21 PM PST by SC_Pete
(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said recently that--"especially after last term"--he does not know if he is confident the Constitution can be restored to its original meaning.
He likened his own efforts to do so to the character "Frodo" in the Lord of the Rings, who fights the good fight not certain he will win.
While discussing his new book Reading Law at Stanford University on Oct. 19, the Hoover Institution’s Peter Robinson quoted to Scalia a passage from Scalia's book, Reading Law: "Originalism does not always provide an easy answer, or even a clear one. Originalism is not perfect. But it is more certain than any other criterion, and it is not too late to restore a strong sense of judicial fidelity to texts."
“So here’s the question,” said Robinson. “This book, for that matter your entire career, represents a sustained, determined effort at restoration. Are you optimistic? How’s the project coming?”
Scalia said: “That’s an unfair question, especially after last term. I dissented in the last 6 cases announced last term. So I don’t know. I don’t know that I’m optimistic. The fight is worth fighting, win or lose. You know, [like] Frodo in the Lord of the Rings.
“Look," Scalia contiued, "the problem is that the other approach is enormously seductive. Even for the average citizen it’s seductive, to think that the Constitution means what it ought to mean. ‘It’s a living Constitution. Anything I care passionately about, it’s right there in the Constitution.’”
“You know, people used to say when they don’t like something that’s going on, they say: 'There ought to be a law,'” said Scalia. “There used to be a comic strip that’d--there ought to be a law about people playing boom boxes in the park and stuff like that.”
“People don’t say that anymore,” said Scalia. “They say, ‘It’s unconstitutional,’ if they really feel passionately about it. And it is even more seductive to judges. It’s a wonderful thing to have a constitutional case and you’re always happy with the result because it means exactly what you think it ought to mean.”
The “originalist” perspective says the words of the Constitution should be given the same meaning they originally had in the minds of the Framers. A competing view,often advocated by contemporary liberals, is that the Constitutio is a “living document” and that judge can change its meaning to fit modern mores and sentiments.
The Constitution itself expressly provides an amendment process for people who want to change it.
Scalia was promoting his new book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, co-authored by Bryan Garner.
Comment: Justice Scalia and the other three "originalists" on the Court have the intent of the founders on their side. James Madison, "the father of the Constitution," wrote in 1825, "I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution."
In 1803, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." (Emphasis added)
Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened over the last century, as the Supreme Court, time and time again, has failed to "resort to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified," and has instead "made a blank paper of it by construction." Thus we are left today with an all-powerful federal overnment, the very creation of the states themselves who had intended that it have only limited powers has, with the concurrence of the Supreme Court, usurped powers in virtually every area of governance that the founders had left to the states, and rendered both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments meaningless.
Justice Scalia's lament is understandable to those who recognize the truth of both Madison's and Jefferson's writings, that a Constitution that means what ever the current members of the Court say it means, without reference to the meaning at the time it was ratified by the states, is actually meaningless, "a blank paper" in Jefferson's words.
The only real hope we have of restoring the Constitution is an effort by the people themselves, through their state governments, to force the federal government to relinquish the powers it has usurped.
Constitutional Law Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University has put forth such a proposal - published in both the Wall Street Journal and Forbes Magazine. Prof. Barnett's "Bill of Federalism" consists of 10 proposed amendments that would have the effect of putting the original meaning back into the Constitution, and reversing the broadening of powers of the Federal Government. If adopted, the Bill of Federalism would force the Federal Government to close every agency and department that is unconstitutional under the terms of the original Constitution within five years.
Here is a link to the Forbes Magazine article - note that there is a link at the bottom of the article to the actual Bill of Federalism, along with a resolution for states to adopt it.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/20/bill-of-federalism-constitution-states-supreme-court-opinions-contributors-randy-barnett.html
So much for comity. Same me, same pistol, same hip.
Copyright can be handled by a 3rd party, government isn't required. And if it is, agreements can be reached about a central filing point.
Currency.... I have 3 one dollar bills, a 1000 Won note, and a 50,000 Shilling note from Uganda in my wallet. I also have a couple of pieces of plastic that work anywhere in the world. I'm going to have more problems with the paper money than the plastic.
Your arguments are understood, but they do not move me.
A covenent is between States. The thing the covenent creates, is a creation of those states.
Think on that.
/johnny
Yeah, government not needed for copyright... welcome to 50 sets of case law.
And one poorly treated amendment does not annul the concept of the whole.
Hell, the governor of my state moved the state militia to the Red River with arty, way back when....
Today, we deal with the territory of Oklahoma a little differently.
Except on Texas/OU weekend.
What is the largest nation that has ever lasted for more than 300 years?
US? No. Not as a nation. USSR? not as a nation. Russia? They never have owned much east of the important places, even though they claim Kamchatka. But they are the closest.
Rome. From Britan to Persia. For almost a 500 years, with borders moving....
I don't want an empire. I don't want a nation.
I want to be left the hell alone so I can live my life.
If national governments can't figure it out, and they piss people like me off enough... we'll fix it.
Don't make me stop this car. ;)
/johnny
We don’t need to add amendments to get back to the rule of law, we just need the states to get some spine.
Get ready to support such a movement. It really is our only hope now.
NO. The RED States would control since it requires 3/4 of the The RATS will not have enough to pass anything. UNTIL THE NEAR FUTURE. We have a chance—a slim one, but the opportunity will be lost if we do not strike now.
read the bill to find out what’s in it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Barnett
THIS WOULD BE CONTROLLED BY THE RED STATES—WE HAVE 30 GOVERNORS AND LEGISLATURES. WE CAN CIRCUMVBENT WASHINGTON AND PUT IT IN ITS PLACE!!!
READ THE BILL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Barnett
Red States would control this. We have 30 governors and state legislatures. Any amewndment would require 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify. We could circumvent Washington and put it in its place.
WOW. Agreed. However, his main point is that only the people can save the Constitution. In my opinion, the Court has been corrupted with LEFTISTS.
READ THE BILL TO FIND OUT WHAT’S IN IT”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Barnett
ALSO: (strategy)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1284371
I THINK THIS IS OUR ONLY REALISTIC SHOT AT SURVIVAL. The Republic is on life support. But it CAN be resucitated BY THE STATES. We could circumvent Washington and put it in its place. The Constitution and the framers anticipated a crisis such as the one we are in. THEY GAVE US A WAY OUT.
US Statute takes precedence and the Supreme Court over the last 100 years has rendered the 10th Amendment impotent. THE WAY THE DECK IS STACKED NOW THE STATES HAVE NO CHANCE.
WE NEED TO RE-SHUFFLE THE DECK, It can be done. AND WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME!!!!!!
Read the Bill to Find out What’s in it!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Barnett
Here’s a strategy:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1284371
PLEASE, read the Bill:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Barnett
Strategy:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1284371
We have 30 governors and 30 state legislatures. RED STATES WOULD CONTROL. This is the nuclear option that the LEFTIST FEAR. The answer to the present crisis is in the Consitutution itself. The framers anticipated this and gave us the answer. However, we won’t have 30 RED STATES much longer. WE MUST ACT NOW. We could circumvent Washington.
But he suggests that the people can save the Constitution:
Here’s one way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Barnett
Here’s a strategy:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1284371
The men at the first Constitutional Convention shared the same moral philosophy and many points were decided with a unison of thought, like what was finally placed into the Bill of Rights, upon which all good men could agree.
Obama and his cohorts are criminals of the highest order and share nothing with good Americans. Their philosophy is Marxist to the core and is absolutely antithetical to any semblance of natural law upon which our entire system of law and government is based.
The real problem with having another constitutional convention is that it would be one huge lib love fest just as Obamacare was and it would give them the open door to completely smashing what is left of our Constitution.
The biggest problem facing us is not the Constitution, but the fact that half of the people in this country believe that it is irrelevant.
And there is no George Washington carefully guiding the current effort.
Yes, they are all communists. That’s why our only chance is to erect a bunkewr of law to keep out the barbarians. Any amendment would have to be approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures. RED STATES would control. No RAT amendment could get 3/4 of the state legislatures. We have 30 governors and state legislatures.
DEBATE AND VOTE. Would it be an infuriating process? Of course. Would there be risk? Yes. Would we have to endure demonstrations and civil unrest and rioting in the streets? Probably. But it is still easier than what the founders had to do.
A herd of cats America would be less great, not more. Countries that ARE federalized, like Canada and Mexico, would eat its lunch.
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.