[Skywalk]

Scalia is not the reegade here. He is standing for 200+ years of historical Constitutional interpretation."

Surely, then, you'll tell me what tradition Presser, Miller, Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dred Scott case fall under? The evil and tyrannical school of jurisprudence?

[irish_links]

"...Surely, then, you'll tell me what tradition Presser, Miller, Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dred Scott case fall under? The evil and tyrannical school of jurisprudence?..."

These cases were resolved through the tradition of courts considering and interpreting the Constitution, its Bill of Rights and Amendments, Common Law precedent and statute as they pertain to the facts of the case. Making up the law on the fly, thereby depriving the rights of the people to govern themselves had nothing to do with them.

As for slavery (in re Dred Scott), it was ended by the ratification of the 13th Amendment by the several states. The Emancipation Proclimation was only tangential and the Supreme Court never dictated it. Slavery was ended by the democratic action of the people.

You seem determined to deprive the people of their right of self governance. You claim that this is in the "spirit" of the Constitution. How on earth have you arrived at that conclusion?