Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nah, any Liberals able to process any of this more advanced info are just idiot savants.
Idiot Savant is a term that is no loger considered accurate and, as a result, is also no longer in common usage, except among the more ignorant classes of people. Savant Syndrome is considered more accurate. Hopefully, you'll be able to benefit from my greater knowledge on the subject, which is likely also true about a wide variety of subjects.
I still like idiot savant, and don't give a hoot what anyone else says about its use.
Idiot Savant is a term that is no loger considered accurate and, as a result, is also no longer in common usage, except among the more ignorant classes of people. Savant Syndrome is considered more accurate. Hopefully, you'll be able to benefit from my greater knowledge on the subject, which is likely also true about a wide variety of subjects.
I still like idiot savant, and don't give a hoot what anyone else says about its use.
When I hear or witness conservatives getting new information and not changing their views, or outlooks, or opinions, even one iota, do you know what my reaction usually is? It's a feeling of resignation that so many conservatives appear to be unwilling or unable to learn anything beyond their preconceived ideas. Personal growth and self-reflection seems to be beyond the grasp of the conservative crowd.
Society evolves
Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed
The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society
That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on
No, that is why we have Article V, to amend the Constitution.
Nonsense.
The amendment process was never intended to address every conflict and controversy that manifests in society; in fact, its wholly unsuited to bring a resolution to the vast majority of issues that come before the courts again, to attempt to do so would litter the Constitution with thousands of amendments rendering it unworkable.
Moreover, it would violate each Americans First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and each Americans Fifth Amendment right to due process of the law by seeking relief before the Federal courts.
Society evolves
Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed
The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society
That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on
No, that is why we have Article V, to amend the Constitution.
Nonsense.
The amendment process was never intended to address every conflict and controversy that manifests in society; in fact, its wholly unsuited to bring a resolution to the vast majority of issues that come before the courts again, to attempt to do so would litter the Constitution with thousands of amendments rendering it unworkable.
Moreover, it would violate each Americans First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and each Americans Fifth Amendment right to due process of the law by seeking relief before the Federal courts.
It's a circular argument. Who is going to decide that the Supreme Court made a 'living document' ruling?
"Living document" advocates admit they are changing the meaning. They believe that's necessary to address our changing needs. But that's what the amendment process is for, and they're trying to do an end run around it because they can't be bothered to build the consensus required to make their desired changes legitimately.
So how do you propose to force judges to think and act the way you want them to?
The libturds are always saying that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Do you suppose they will accept what this Supreme Court justices has to say?
Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism' | Fox News
During a speech in Atlanta Friday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Friday defended interpreting the Constitution as it was originally written and intended.
Scalia delivered a speech titled "Interpreting the Constitution: A View From the High Court," as part of a constitutional symposium hosted by the State Bar of Georgia. Originalism and trying to figure out precisely what the ratified document means is the only option, otherwise you're just telling judges to govern, Scalia argued.
"The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."
"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself."
Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29
Society evolves
Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed
The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society
That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on
No, that is why we have Article V, to amend the Constitution.
Nonsense.
The amendment process was never intended to address every conflict and controversy that manifests in society; in fact, its wholly unsuited to bring a resolution to the vast majority of issues that come before the courts again, to attempt to do so would litter the Constitution with thousands of amendments rendering it unworkable.
Moreover, it would violate each Americans First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and each Americans Fifth Amendment right to due process of the law by seeking relief before the Federal courts.
The third great crisis, which continues today, is the challenge of Progressivism, a movement founded by Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and others.
The Progressives rejected the Founders principles, including their notions of a fixed human nature and inalienable natural rights.
Instead, they believed in a human nature that evolved and changed, which in turn justified their efforts to break down separation of powers in order to expand the size and scope of government far beyond the Founders intent.
Alter? We can call a Convention, and burn the damn thing.Yes, the present generation has the right to alter the Constitution through the means set up in the Constitution for amendment.
We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution. .
Scalias entitled to his opinion, as is every other American, and alone his opinion carries no more authority or weight than any other Americans; and his opinion does not hold with the facts and evidence concerning the Constitution.Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'
Justice Kennedys understanding of the Framers intent is the most accurate, as he expressed in Lawrence:
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
The Framers correctly understood that it would be impossible to incorporate a finite list of citizens protected rights, or have a comprehensive enumeration of governments authority, where it is the principles enshrined in the Constitution which remain constant, allowing Americans to realize manifestations of individual liberty the Framers sought not to identify in total, and wisely so.
The Constitution is, therefore, neither living nor static, it is not a mere blueprint of government, it is more than just what it says and doesn't say It is a document of the law, the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence seeking to establish a relationship between government and those governed were citizens civil liberties are safeguarded.
But the Constitution is not solely a straightjacket on government, it acknowledges the legitimate role of government in civil society, by affording Congress powers both enumerated and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)), where acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (US v. Lopez (1995)), and where the laws enacted by Congress and the rulings of Federal courts are supreme to the laws and measures of the states and local jurisdictions (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).
The interpretive authority of the courts is beyond dispute, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, and as practiced by Colonial courts well over a century before the Foundation Era (Marbury v. Madison (1803)). Judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts is not an invention of the Supreme Court, as the Court merely codified a long-standing legal doctrine where Americans of the Framing Period fully expected the courts to review acts of Congress and invalidate those acts repugnant to the Constitution.
The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court; the Founding Documents very construct, history of its composition, and foundation on English common law dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II is indisputable evidence of that, to argue otherwise is to be ignorant of these facts, and seeks only to promote a partisan agenda, having nothing to do with the Constitution and its meaning.
View huh? Strict? Not in the slightest. If there was there would be no restrictions on Free Speech, and there are. You managed to get it all wrong. Congrats.It boils down to classic right vs left ideology. The right views the Constitution as a strict law of the land while the left views the Constitution as an obstruction to it's never ending progressive agenda.
That's not the argument. Debate over interpretation is legitimate. "Living document" proponents want to change the meaning as needed, without going through the amendment process. That just "cheating".
Justice Scalia has said that the 14th amendment doesn't protect equal rights for women, because the intent of it was to provide equal rights for blacks only.
Is he right?
Of course not.
Apparently Scalia doesnt consider women to be persons.
Scalia is no different than any other rightwing partisan ideologue, hostile to 14th Amendment jurisprudence only because it benefits disadvantaged classes of persons conservatives disapprove of for purely subjective reasons.
View huh? Strict? Not in the slightest. If there was there would be no restrictions on Free Speech, and there are. You managed to get it all wrong. Congrats.It boils down to classic right vs left ideology. The right views the Constitution as a strict law of the land while the left views the Constitution as an obstruction to it's never ending progressive agenda.
The federal Constitution has been amended 27 times, California's Constitution amended over five hundred times. Some states have even rewritten their state Consitutions a few times, all that to keep up with the times? The federal Constitution would have to have been amended thousands of times if Scalia had been followed by the entire Court. Can we even imagine what America would be like if American had followed the Scalia's originalism intent?
Really? Yes, you missed something. Let me introduce you to the Real World: United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaView huh? Strict? Not in the slightest. If there was there would be no restrictions on Free Speech, and there are. You managed to get it all wrong. Congrats.It boils down to classic right vs left ideology. The right views the Constitution as a strict law of the land while the left views the Constitution as an obstruction to it's never ending progressive agenda.
Did I miss something? There are no restrictions on free speech.
That's both nuts, and wrong.Fuck the Constitution, it is just a damned piece of paper with no importance in today's society. Our "leaders" use it to their ends, whether it means ignoring it to carry out their agenda or using their stacked courts to prevent the electorate or legislatures from passing "unconstitutional" laws they don't like.
