Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[AntiParty]

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."​

Holy crap, I couldn't get past post #1. Fox News is openly known as a false source of information. I can't believe I found a forum where people actually repeat it!

 

[AntiParty]

Just research the topic lol....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Even considering all that to be true, the fact remains that the Supreme Court rewrites the Constitution with so-called "interpretations." That's what Roberts did when he said the penalty in the ACA was a tax. You have to ignore the well understood definitions of words like "penalty" and "tax" to reach such a conclusion. In fact, you even have to ignore what the Obama administration said about he ACA to reach such a conclusion.

The question we have to ask is should the government be trusted to interpret a document objectively that limits its power? In any dispute between private parties and the government, can an arm of the government be trusted to treat both sides equally? Anyone who believes it can is a fool.

Allowing the Supreme Court a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution needs to end. Until the Civil War, the SC didn't have such authority. States could overrule the Supreme Court simply by ignoring Laws passed by Congress that the states didn't like. Jury nullification also place a check on the government's power. Unfortunately the federal government has largely neutered these to mechanisms. Personally I believe government is inherently corrupt and can never be entrusted with power over anyone. That's why I'm an anarchist.

Well, seeing the difference in decisions, say for example Brown v. Board of Education against many that came before it, you have to ask why this changed so much.

Was it merely an interpretation with the times? was it the Supreme Court making law? Was it that the Court beforehand had ruled wrongly? Or did they rule wrongly in this case?

Fact is Brown has stayed as the law since then.

The separation of powers are there to help limit the power of govt. That was the design, i'm not saying the govt works well in its present state, merely commenting on what exists right now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 doesn’t 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.

The fourteenth amendment did not give women the right to vote. Refer to section 2 of the amendment. It refers to male inhabitants, over twenty-one years of age. Facts are facts, regardless of how much those facts hurt your sensibilities.

Scalia has said this about the 14th Amendment:

“In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation,” Scalia said in a recent interview with the legal magazine California Lawyer.

“So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both? Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that.”

But, the 14th Amendment itself says this:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


The question is, how is Scalia able to interpret 'citizens' and 'any person' as not including women and gays?



Source: Justice Scalia's 'Originalist' Hypocrisy

 

[paperview]

Of course not.

Apparently Scalia doesn’t 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.

The fourteenth amendment did not give women the right to vote. Refer to section 2 of the amendment. It refers to male inhabitants, over twenty-one years of age. Facts are facts, regardless of how much those facts hurt your sensibilities.

Scalia has said this about the 14th Amendment:

“In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation,” Scalia said in a recent interview with the legal magazine California Lawyer.

“So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both? Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that.”

But, the 14th Amendment itself says this:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


The question is, how is Scalia able to interpret 'citizens' and 'any person' as not including women and gays?



Source: Justice Scalia's 'Originalist' Hypocrisy

Great article. Thanks for that link.

 

[Interpol]

The morons who think the Constitution is not a living document must then agree that the 2nd amendment was meant precisely and absolutely for military personnel only to bear arms, just as the amendment states.

Even Ronald Reagan agreed to as much.

 

[J.E.D]

Yes, you are correct, we have been at their mercy, and still are. But, that does not mean that we have to buy into that idea as the proper way of doing it.

The old ways of tainted food and child laborers were not the correct way, either.

None of which had anything to do with the Constitution.
Note...Those and other 'inhumanities' were outlawed by legislation.

And those laws were upheld as constitutional by the scotus when they were challenged. The scotus interpreted the Constitution to determine the constitutionality of those laws. It's kind of the way things work in the us.

 

[J.E.D]

The libturds are always saying that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

Not quite, but the SC does determine the constitutionality of laws, so....

As far as the Constitution being a living document, well it is. It has been amended to suit changing times and views. Perhaps you've heard of the Bill of Rights? How about the 15th amendment which "prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude"? Should we go back to the days before that amendment because it wasn't originally in the Constitution?

That is bullshit.
SCOTUS opinions DO NOT change the Constitution.

I didn't say they change it. I said they interpret it to determine the constitutionality of laws. Which they do. Are denying that?

And I also said that the Constitution is a living document because it can be amended.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not quite, but the SC does determine the constitutionality of laws, so....

As far as the Constitution being a living document, well it is. It has been amended to suit changing times and views. Perhaps you've heard of the Bill of Rights? How about the 15th amendment which "prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude"? Should we go back to the days before that amendment because it wasn't originally in the Constitution?

That is bullshit.
SCOTUS opinions DO NOT change the Constitution.

I didn't say they change it. I said they interpret it to determine the constitutionality of laws. Which they do. Are denying that?

And I also said that the Constitution is a living document because it can be amended.

Case law provides the specifics to the general rules that the Constitution establishes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Scalia is an egomaniac and one reason the Supreme Court needs to establish a code of ethics, as done by all of the inferior courts. His coziness with Cheney and the Koch Brothers puts him squarely in the camp of the Plutocrats and at odds with the vision statement of the founders, to wit:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

and this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

 

[kaz]

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."​

Holy crap, I couldn't get past post #1. Fox News is openly known as a false source of information. I can't believe I found a forum where people actually repeat it!

I feel you. Hearing multiple points of view? What's up with that? The thinking has already been done by the great liberal brain trust. We just need to know the answer, and the left wing media is already providing us with that. Anything else is confusing, and therefore probably dangerous and needs to be stopped.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Notwithstanding the comment above, consider this:

Apply the Code of Conduct for United States Judges to the Supreme Court | CREDO Mobilize

 

[kaz]

Scalia is an egomaniac and one reason the Supreme Court needs to establish a code of ethics, as done by all of the inferior courts. His coziness with Cheney and the Koch Brothers puts him squarely in the camp of the Plutocrats and at odds with the vision statement of the founders, to wit:

Yep, anyone who disagrees with you not only is wrong, but they are disagreeing with you because there is something actually wrong with them. There is no other explanation since you know the one and only truth. Hmm...maybe you're the egomaniac...

 

[paperview]

Scalia



Saying "Fuck you."

 

[frigidweirdo]

The morons who think the Constitution is not a living document must then agree that the 2nd amendment was meant precisely and absolutely for military personnel only to bear arms, just as the amendment states.

Even Ronald Reagan agreed to as much.

To be honest, I know a lot about the 2A and it is for military purposes. However most people only seem to take one view of the amendment and ignore the history.

"bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty". I know this because the founding fathers said so.

I also know the argument that "bear" can mean "carry" therefore it DOES mean "carry" is a retarded argument.
Same for "stool"? So stool means poo right? Therefore when I say "John sat on the wooden stool by the bar" all those people who believe what I just said must also believe that "John sat on the wooden poo by the bar", because if it can mean something therefore it must.

Also, you can't regulate a right, which means carry and conceal permits would be unconstitutional, and yet the NRA supported them. Go figure.

Actually, the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so the militia has a ready supply of personnel. You know, "guns don't kill people, people do" (Or better said people with guns do).

The right is for this, doesn't mean you can't do other things with your guns, as long as they are legal, which has nothing to do with the constitution (other than the power the govts have to limit things that might otherwise be legal, like say, hunting).

 

[regent]

There is something ironic about Scalia interpreting the Constitution to say it is not allowed to be interpreted.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Scalia is an egomaniac and one reason the Supreme Court needs to establish a code of ethics, as done by all of the inferior courts. His coziness with Cheney and the Koch Brothers puts him squarely in the camp of the Plutocrats and at odds with the vision statement of the founders, to wit:

Yep, anyone who disagrees with you not only is wrong, but they are disagreeing with you because there is something actually wrong with them. There is no other explanation since you know the one and only truth. Hmm...maybe you're the egomaniac...

Your quote would seem to say that you believe only you can be right.

People can have opinions on what Supreme Court Justices are up to, and not always believe that they are always right.

 

[Truthmatters]

the constitution belongs to the living.

the founders designed it that way by allowing us to amend it.

To have a SCOTUS member deny that is outrageous.

the man should NOT be in that position

 

[kaz]

Scalia is an egomaniac and one reason the Supreme Court needs to establish a code of ethics, as done by all of the inferior courts. His coziness with Cheney and the Koch Brothers puts him squarely in the camp of the Plutocrats and at odds with the vision statement of the founders, to wit:

Yep, anyone who disagrees with you not only is wrong, but they are disagreeing with you because there is something actually wrong with them. There is no other explanation since you know the one and only truth. Hmm...maybe you're the egomaniac...

Your quote would seem to say that you believe only you can be right.

If someone calls someone else an egomaniac, and I say that makes them sound like one, that means only I "can be right." Did it hurt when you pulled that one out of your ass?

People can have opinions on what Supreme Court Justices are up to, and not always believe that they are always right.

True, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I was referring to that someone disagreeing with him was an "egomaniac."

 

[Truthmatters]

Scalia



Saying "Fuck you."

Yes we know he hates Americans