Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[kaz]

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

Unlike you, Scalia read the Constitution. The Constitution does belong to the "living." In fact, the founders know that and prescribed how it is changed.

2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.

Nowhere does it say your method of 5/9.

 

[Truthmatters]

the constitution can be amended.

that is what the founders designed.


that right there makes it a living document.

SCALIA is insane and needs to be removed

 

[kaz]

Yes we know he hates Americans

Just the leaches and parasites. Taking that personally?

 

[kaz]

the constitution can be amended.

that is what the founders designed.


that right there makes it a living document.

SCALIA is insane and needs to be removed

Unlike you, Scalia read the Constitution. The Constitution does belong to the "living." In fact, the founders know that and prescribed how it is changed.

2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.

Nowhere does it say your method of 5/9.

 

[Truthmatters]

what a living document means is that it can change.

your a complete idiot

 

[dblack]

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

That's not what he's saying. Everyone is sort of ignoring the difference between interpreting the Constitution, and deliberately changing it's meaning. The living document proponents are arguing over the goal of interpreting the Constitution - should it be to discern the intended meaning, or should we divine any meaning we like depending on the current circumstances? The LD folks are arguing for the latter, which makes the amendment process superfluous.

 

[kaz]

what a living document means is that it can change.

your a complete idiot

I keep agreeing with you. In fact, the founders know that and prescribed how it is changed.

2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.

Nowhere does it say your method of 5/9.

 

[Truthmatters]

Living document - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Truthmatters]

the founders gave us control of the document.


It can be altered by the people.


Your a fucking liar

 

[Truthmatters]

why does your idiot right wing nutball scotus member lie?

 

[NYcarbineer]

what a living document means is that it can change.

your a complete idiot

I keep agreeing with you. In fact, the founders know that and prescribed how it is changed.

2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.

Nowhere does it say your method of 5/9.

Wrong. It can change from the general to the specific based on case law, and since the Court is not constitutionally limited as to the scope of their interpretative license,

the Constitution can mean virtually anything the Court says it means, and that meaning will stand as law unless changed by some other constitutional means.

 

[kaz]

the founders gave us control of the document.


It can be altered by the people.


Your a fucking liar

LOL, you need to learn to use Google:

US Constitution, Article V: "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, also 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."

And seriously, when the Courts do it, that is "the people" changing it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

That's not what he's saying. Everyone is sort of ignoring the difference between interpreting the Constitution, and deliberately changing it's meaning. The living document proponents are arguing over the goal of interpreting the Constitution - should it be to discern the intended meaning, or should we divine any meaning we like depending on the current circumstances? The LD folks are arguing for the latter, which makes the amendment process superfluous.

So you think that when the 14th amendment gave 'any person' in the US equal protection under the law,

it's a divination as you call it to assume that homosexuals, or women should be considered included under the umbrella of 'any person'??

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Utterly idiotic.

 

[dblack]

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

That's not what he's saying. Everyone is sort of ignoring the difference between interpreting the Constitution, and deliberately changing it's meaning. The living document proponents are arguing over the goal of interpreting the Constitution - should it be to discern the intended meaning, or should we divine any meaning we like depending on the current circumstances? The LD folks are arguing for the latter, which makes the amendment process superfluous.

So you think that when the 14th amendment gave 'any person' in the US equal protection under the law,

it's a divination as you call it to assume that homosexuals, or women should be considered included under the umbrella of 'any person'??

Edited -- ok, I think I get what you're asking now.

Whether or not that is 'living document' bullshit or not, depends on whether you think those who ratified the 14th meant to exclude women or homosexuals. If you think they did, you'd need another amendment to correct it, and not just 'interpretation'.

 

[bripat9643]

Notwithstanding the comment above, consider this:

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

And who will enforce that?

 

[The T]

the founders gave us control of the document.


It can be altered by the people.


Your a fucking liar

Altered as in making law(s) to circumvent it? Really? That is what's going on. There is only ONE way and that is the Amendment process. PERIOD.

 

[NYcarbineer]

the founders gave us control of the document.


It can be altered by the people.


Your a fucking liar

LOL, you need to learn to use Google:

US Constitution, Article V: "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, also 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."

And seriously, when the Courts do it, that is "the people" changing it?

We have a representative government. Our representatives choose the judges.

 

[The T]

the founders gave us control of the document.


It can be altered by the people.


Your a fucking liar

LOL, you need to learn to use Google:

US Constitution, Article V: "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, also 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."

And seriously, when the Courts do it, that is "the people" changing it?

We have a representative government. Our representatives choose the judges.

So you are stating that the COURTS may alter the Constitution? Really?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's not what he's saying. Everyone is sort of ignoring the difference between interpreting the Constitution, and deliberately changing it's meaning. The living document proponents are arguing over the goal of interpreting the Constitution - should it be to discern the intended meaning, or should we divine any meaning we like depending on the current circumstances? The LD folks are arguing for the latter, which makes the amendment process superfluous.

So you think that when the 14th amendment gave 'any person' in the US equal protection under the law,

it's a divination as you call it to assume that homosexuals, or women should be considered included under the umbrella of 'any person'??

Edited -- ok, I think I get what you're asking now.

Whether or not that is 'living document' bullshit or not, depends on whether you think those who ratified the 14th meant to exclude women or homosexuals. If you think they did, you'd need another amendment to correct it, and not just 'interpretation'.

But that is up to the judges to decide. That is part of their mandate. Deciding what you describe above is an exercise in 'interpretation', and interpreting the law is what the court does.