U.S. Supreme Court justice: 'Constitution is a static being'

The Chicago Tribune ^ | February 13, 2012 | Alexandra Chachkevitch

[lex33]

Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday touted his approach to interpreting the federal Constitution that focuses on the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Scalia, a former University of Chicago law professor, called the “originalism” method “the lesser evil.” “I don’t have to prove [it’s] perfect. The question is whether it’s better than everything else,” said Scalia, who addressed about 400 people at the University of Chicago Law School. Originalism was behind his reasoning in a 2008Ö Supreme Court case that upheld the individual’s right to possess a firearm, he said. Scalia wrote the majority opinion for the case and argued that the Constitution’s specific language referred to possessing a firearm as a pre-existing right. The court’s longest-serving justice, Scalia said he focuses on historical details and the original meaning of the Constitution to make his decisions, which may not always coincide with his own opinions. “The Constitution is a static being,” said Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. Opponents of originalism, who include fellow Justice Stephen Breyer, say that the Constitution was meant to be more flexible and adaptive to the changing times. Some phrases in the Constitution, such as “cruel and unusual” criminal punishment, are too broad to be interpreted as a specific permanent rule that does not allow for interpretation, critics of originalism say. The Ninth Amendment, which protects the rights that the Founding Fathers did not list, is also cited as an argument against the originalism approach. “Maybe there is a right to abortion,” Scalia said, answering a question from one of the students. “[The founders] didn’t specify, but they didn’t leave it up to the courts to do it either.”

[Olog-hai]

“I don’t have to prove [it’s] perfect. The question is whether it’s better than everything else”

It’d only be godless leftists that think humans can achieve perfection by themselves . . .

[DonaldC]

Thank God for men like him.

[bgill]

The Constitution is old and outdated, just ask Ginsburg.

[FlingWingFlyer]

I imagine that old gasbag, Ginsberg, feels the same way about the Ten Commandments. She took that “have it your way” thing seriously.

[oldbrowser]

Opponents of originalism, who include fellow Justice Stephen Breyer, say that the Constitution was meant to be more flexible and adaptive to the changing times.

Flexible and adaptive as defined by who?
It is a pact by the American people describing how they want their government to operate.
It is not up to the government or any of it's branches to redefine the instructions. Just follow them as written.

[vette6387]

“I imagine that old gasbag, Ginsberg, feels the same way about the Ten Commandments. She took that “have it your way” thing seriously.”

The old hag is just Obama in a skirt. She no more believes in the Constitution than does Obama. If the Court had a couple more like her, with Obama they would obliterate this country’s foundations. They both hate it!

[savagesusie]

I agree with much of what Scalia says-—except really-—he thinks there is a “right” to kill a baby in the womb when science tells us it is a human being and has an inalienable right to life by its very existence in the US.

Even the Founders KNEW there was no “right” to abortion—and all our laws prove that. Where is the “new” insight?

Also, that there is a right to sodomy if a majority of people vote for it-—when it denies the “general welfare” of a society and children to have their biological parents do their Duty (reason for social contracts) and RAISE THEM? He thinks “JUST LAW” can consist of such bizarre and unnatural “reasoning” and logic when our Supreme Law of the Land is seeped in Natural Law Theory.

Geeeeshhhhh and he is a “conservative” justice. He should look up what Just Law is. It certainly isn’t using the force of government to force unnatural urges as a “right” and force the ideas as “moral” to children. It destroys reason and the Christian paradigm-—destroys freedom of religion for an imagined “right” to demean and debase other human beings is disgusting, destructive and force people to claim the Bible “Hate speech”.

Scalia-—you must know the quote of all the Founding Fathers and all philosophers prior to John Austin and Bentham-—who stated that Virtue was a fundamental necessity to Freedom and a Republic. Sodomy can NOT be good-—just because a majority vote it to be so. We have our Rights from God-—not Barney Frank——His standards are at the basis of ALL OUR RIGHTS and sodomy is NOT a RIGHT. Wake up.

[llandres]

I love Scalia - long may he live. He’s a great American and a real Constitutionalist, unlike that OTHER University of Chicago law “professor”.

[Frank_2001]

The only things that could have been added, and then only if the Founders could see the future:

You have the right to drive a car.
If you earn it, you have the right to keep it.

;)

[CitizenUSA]

If you wrote a contract, wouldn’t you want it enforced per its original meaning? You certainly wouldn’t want the other party to modify it at will, would you? Well, the US Constitution is a contract between We the People and the federal government. It even contains an agreement on how it can be modified by mutual consent. It could even be rewritten to include whatever the left wants if they can convince enough people. That’s too difficult of course. It’s far easier to simply reinterpret the contract to mean whatever one wants. The left, unfortunately, has a big advantage here, because the right wants to hold to the original contract, while the left wants to expand it.

[TigersEye]

Opponents of originalism, who include fellow Justice Stephen Breyer, say that the Constitution was meant to be more flexible and adaptive to the changing times.

I defy him to find any historical documentation that would support that. There are reams of documents that support the originalist view.

Some phrases in the Constitution, such as “cruel and unusual” criminal punishment, are too broad to be interpreted as a specific permanent rule that does not allow for interpretation, critics of originalism say.

So sometimes it would alright to use cruel and unusual punishments? Sounds like a liberal's mind.

[denydenydeny]

The Ninth Amendment, which protects the rights that the Founding Fathers did not list, is also cited as an argument against the originalism approach.

Only if you're an idiot and deliberately ignore the IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING Tenth Amendment, which categorically limits all other legal "innovations" to the states unless their boosters can get a new Amendment added.

[llandres]

Well, BHO put a couple more like her on the bench already, and you’re right. I pray people will think of this very real and serious threat when they say they’ll “sit this one out” if their candidate doesn’t get chosen. Anyone who thinks that ANY on our side are as bad as BHO just doesn’t understand how really evil he is.

He is hellbent on destroying our country.

[Joe Bfstplk]

Hold the constitution to its original intent. If it does not meet mondern day needs, amend it. The several states will then decide.

[SierraWasp]

"If you wrote a contract, wouldn’t you want it enforced per its original meaning?"

What a beautiful object lesson and analogy!!!

In fact that reply of yours deserves a "Hall of FReeper Fame" award!!!

Sincerely.

[facedown]

The Constitution is old and outdated, just ask Ginsburg.

Actually it's Ginsburg who is old and outdated.

[denydenydeny]

If you wrote a contract, wouldn’t you want it enforced per its original meaning? You certainly wouldn’t want the other party to modify it at will, would you?

Which is why the increasing use of the word "fair" in political discourse sets my teeth on edge. "Fair" almost never appears in contracts because it's arbitrary and subjective. Contracts demand exact language. The use of "fair" brings with it an implication of improvisation, of making it up as we go along.

[factoryrat]

Scalia is right, the United States Constitution is the law of the land, by which all other laws are ultimately derived from, and must be abided by. The language of the Constitution is very clear about this, except to those who want to try to make an end run around it.

[KarlInOhio]

Opponents of originalism, who include fellow Justice Stephen Breyer, say that the Constitution was meant to be more flexible and adaptive to the changing times.

It was meant to be flexible and adaptive. That's why Article V was included.

Article V - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Two thirds of each house of Congress and more than half of the legislators in three quarters of the states is a lot higher bar than five lifetime political appointees.