Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[Contumacious]

In Marbury the Court merely recognized and codified judicial review where citizens of the new Nation fully expected the courts to review the acts of Congress, and invalidate those found to be repugnant to the Constitution:

It is true that the Founding Fathers INTENDED to apply judicial review to disputes by the fact that they adopted ARTICLE III.

But the FACT is that Article III has been abolished as evidenced by the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state which is in effect. The fact that a "conservative" justice would uphold Obama Hellcare - means that the Judiciary is now a cabinet level administrative agency.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wrong again. None of the Democrats who voted against the invasion were saying that Saddam didn't have WMDs. They just didn't want to invade anyway. I am in favor of that position, but it's not what you've been arguing. You don't get to move the goal posts. If you want to argue we shouldn't have invaded without the lie that Democrats were lied to, then I'll be with you. I am not going to sit and let you spew the crap though that it was the Republicans when it was both of you.

"None of the Democrats who voted against the invasion were saying that Saddam didn't have WMDs", really??? I didn't know, post the quotes from each of the 126 H. or Rep. Democrats who voted against the Iraq Resolution and the 21 Senate Democrats who voted against the Iraq Resolution said words which you attribute to them in your post.

Clearly some of the D's didn't go along with what you attribute to them, as the evidence will show. See:

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the amendments offered by Democrats.

So now the goal posts move again. First it was Gore. I shot down that as the crap that it was, he supported the invasion. Then it was the Democrats. Oops, they argued the same thing as the Republicans whether they supported invasion or not. Your second goal post position is shot down. So now, it's if ANY Democrat said there weren't WMDs. And you can't actually show that either, so you show me Wiki and refer to amendments that didn't say that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

So, where to the goal posts move to now?

The goal posts haven't moved, you're being intentionally obtuse as well as dishonest (the only other explanation is you're mentally retarded). I don't care which. Nor did I post anything about Gore's support for the invasion of Iraq. If you believe I did my parenthetical comment is spot on, so post my comment which you misconstrued do to your disability (or admit being intentionally obtuse and dishonest).

Nor did I say a word about the presence or not of WMD's, my comment was restricted to the comments about WMD's by Rice, Rumsfeld and Cheney on the Sunday News Shows to justify the Iraq War.

The more I think about your comments the more I think you're simply a common liar. You may also be stupid, but that's not a crime.

 

[Antares]

You're going to force everyone to believe the radical rightwing agenda of a Justice Scalia?

lol, good luck with that.

Scalia is correct. The constitution is to be taken as it is written, not interpreted by factions from either side. It says what is says, it is clear. The ambiguity is only in the minds of those who do not like what the document says.

Scalia is incorrect, and so are you.

And as a partisan rightist it comes as no surprise you agree with him.

As with Scalia, you predicate your belief of a ‘literal constitution’ not on facts or evidence as to the original intent of the Framers, but on your perception that a ‘literal constitution’ would be more kind to subjective conservative dogma, where a ‘bare bones’ constitution would allow you to ban abortion, or deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.

Huh...you...a known hack...Scalia...a respected Jurist.

Sorry, you lose.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What is funny, is that those on these boards the posters that do not want interpretation of the Constitution, immediatley begin interpreting the Constituion to prove their point.

Learn the difference between "reading" and "interpreting".

 

[kaz]

"None of the Democrats who voted against the invasion were saying that Saddam didn't have WMDs", really??? I didn't know, post the quotes from each of the 126 H. or Rep. Democrats who voted against the Iraq Resolution and the 21 Senate Democrats who voted against the Iraq Resolution said words which you attribute to them in your post.

Clearly some of the D's didn't go along with what you attribute to them, as the evidence will show. See:

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the amendments offered by Democrats.

So now the goal posts move again. First it was Gore. I shot down that as the crap that it was, he supported the invasion. Then it was the Democrats. Oops, they argued the same thing as the Republicans whether they supported invasion or not. Your second goal post position is shot down. So now, it's if ANY Democrat said there weren't WMDs. And you can't actually show that either, so you show me Wiki and refer to amendments that didn't say that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

So, where to the goal posts move to now?

I think the libs have the goal posts up their asses by now. They always lose this one but the idiots keep trying it over an over. liberalism is a mental disease, they display that every day.

I supported efforts including Reagan in Lebanon, and HW in Gulf War I. I started to realize that it's endless, our allies are constantly undercutting us, we're not getting anywhere and it's not in our national interest to keep doing this. So I started questioning what appropriate use of the military is and that those were not defensive engagements.

If the Democrats said wow, we learned from Iraq,, we were wrong. Then I could respect that. But they are trying to rewrite history into what it wasn't. There are two parties, both are everywhere in DC. They said the same things. They are both guilty. The only lie was the Democrats saying they were lied to. Hussein did have WMDs, he knew how to make them, he used them, he was a threat. Just not a direct one to us, it wasn't our war.

 

[OKTexas]

Define "cruel and unusual punishment."

Without interpreting it.

OK, lets play, first you define "endowed by their creator".

No. I asked you first.

If you refuse to answer, that will provide answers all in itself.

Define "cruel and unusual punishment."

Without interpreting it.

You folks want definitions, try looking in a dictionary of the period, you will find the definitions the founders were using. Lawyers try to make this shit complicated, it's really not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OKTexas, by the doctrine of affirmative silence, admits defeat.

 

[Erand7899]

You're going to force everyone to believe the radical rightwing agenda of a Justice Scalia?

lol, good luck with that.

Scalia is correct. The constitution is to be taken as it is written, not interpreted by factions from either side. It says what is says, it is clear. The ambiguity is only in the minds of those who do not like what the document says.

Scalia is incorrect, and so are you.

And as a partisan rightist it comes as no surprise you agree with him.

As with Scalia, you predicate your belief of a ‘literal constitution’ not on facts or evidence as to the original intent of the Framers, but on your perception that a ‘literal constitution’ would be more kind to subjective conservative dogma, where a ‘bare bones’ constitution would allow you to ban abortion, or deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.

You seem to believe that you have an intimate knowledge of what other people think, but that is only a reflection of your own left wing dogma coming back at you. All intelligent people start with a literal interpretation of a contract and then work back to what the people who wrote and agreed to the contract intended it to mean.

No, I do not base my beliefs that the United States Constitution should be interpreted and not rewriten, on whether, or not, I agree with the outcome. To the contrary, I base my beliefs on the outcome, when I agree that the courts reasoning on the constitutional question is a reasonable interpretation.

Roe vs Wade was wrongly decided, and the legal contradictions that have spewed from that decision is strong evidence of that fact. A school teacher can't give a teenager an aspirin, without her parents consent, but she can take her across state lines for an abortion without even the parents knowledge. That is just one of the legal contradictions caused by a bad supreme court decision. The liberal argument that it is her body and she can do what she wants with it, is bogus. Try and sell one of your kidneys and see how far that concept goes.

Separation of church and state was wrongly decided because the decision was primarily based on a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, and not on the Constitution itself. Not to mention the fact that the letter in question was in regard to the Virginia Constitution and not the United States Constitution. Since several states still had their own state based religions, after the Constitution was adopted, and few, if any, of the people who wrote the Constitution objected to that situation, the separation concept is bogus on its face.

If the religious clause is read, with knowledge that states did have state based religions, at the time of the creation and adoption of the Constitution, it is perfectly clear that the framers did not desire the federal government to establish any state based religion, nor interfere with the existing state based religions. Once again we see the legal contradictions produced by the court attempting to rewrite the Constitution in their own dumbass image.

As far as same sex marriage goes, I am a live and let live type of person. The state has no business being in the marriage business in the first place. Marriage is a religious rite, and only concerns the state in regards to the legal ramifications regarding the custody of children and joint property.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

OKTexas, by the doctrine of affirmative silence, admits defeat.

And those who agree with Scalia may admit defeat as well.

No rightist subscribing to this thread has provided objective, documented evidence in support of he errant notion that judicial review was a ‘post-Marbury contrivance.’

And their arguments against judicial review in any event fail as they clearly conflict with the fundamental tenets of our Constitutional Republic whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The ultimate irony of this thread, of course, as well as the ultimate hypocrisy of conservatives, is that Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller is the epitome of judicial interpretation – where he fabricated out of whole cloth the right to self-defense and the individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense.

Now, I agree with Scalia’s ruling in Heller, he made a compelling and successful argument using primary documents and sources from the Foundation Era as the Framers were in essence silent on the issue; where Scalia contrived the doctrine of how Americans perceived the Second Amendment right at the time of its ratification. But his ruling was nonetheless interpretation, where from the text of the Amendment alone there is no evidence as to a right to self-defense or an individual right to possess a firearm.

And I accept Heller as settled and acknowledged precedent because the doctrine of judicial review authorizes the Supreme Court to indeed determine what the Constitution means, as originally intended by the Framers.

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas, by the doctrine of affirmative silence, admits defeat.

And those who agree with Scalia may admit defeat as well.

No rightist subscribing to this thread has provided objective, documented evidence in support of he errant notion that judicial review was a ‘post-Marbury contrivance.’

And their arguments against judicial review in any event fail as they clearly conflict with the fundamental tenets of our Constitutional Republic whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law.

Legislation by judicial fiat is not a tenet of our Constitutional republic, there are no areas of gray in law, it is black or white. A circumstance is lawful or it's not, there are no in between. The meaning of the Constitution was determined the day it was written and they put it on paper to preserve that meaning. Like I said above if you have a question of their meaning all you need do is refer to a dictionary of the period, the meaning will be clear.

Every fucking lawyer and judge that has been admitted to the bar swears to support and defend the Constitution, then a large portion of them spend their whole careers trying to circumvent and subvert the document they swore loyalty to. So no, I don't recognize the courts self enabled ability to make decisions that are contrary to the text of the Constitution, one fine example, a court cannot order the government to pay an individual money before congress passes a bill authorizing that specific payment. Why, because the Constitution says no money will be spent without proper appropriations. I could go on, but what's the fucking point, the informed people already agree with me the others, really don't matter. BTW I kept the example simple so even fakey could understand.

 

[OKTexas]

The ultimate irony of this thread, of course, as well as the ultimate hypocrisy of conservatives, is that Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller is the epitome of judicial interpretation – where he fabricated out of whole cloth the right to self-defense and the individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense.

Now, I agree with Scalia’s ruling in Heller, he made a compelling and successful argument using primary documents and sources from the Foundation Era as the Framers were in essence silent on the issue; where Scalia contrived the doctrine of how Americans perceived the Second Amendment right at the time of its ratification. But his ruling was nonetheless interpretation, where from the text of the Amendment alone there is no evidence as to a right to self-defense or an individual right to possess a firearm.

And I accept Heller as settled and acknowledged precedent because the doctrine of judicial review authorizes the Supreme Court to indeed determine what the Constitution means, as originally intended by the Framers.

Really, you have a right to life with no right to defend it. That has to be the biggest bunch of bullshit you've put out yet.

 

[dblack]

The ultimate irony of this thread, of course, as well as the ultimate hypocrisy of conservatives, is that Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller is the epitome of judicial interpretation – where he fabricated out of whole cloth the right to self-defense and the individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense.

Now, I agree with Scalia’s ruling in Heller, he made a compelling and successful argument using primary documents and sources from the Foundation Era as the Framers were in essence silent on the issue; where Scalia contrived the doctrine of how Americans perceived the Second Amendment right at the time of its ratification. But his ruling was nonetheless interpretation, where from the text of the Amendment alone there is no evidence as to a right to self-defense or an individual right to possess a firearm.

And I accept Heller as settled and acknowledged precedent because the doctrine of judicial review authorizes the Supreme Court to indeed determine what the Constitution means, as originally intended by the Framers.

The irony (or perhaps the entirely predictable outcome) of this thread is the fact that it's devolved into irrelevant distraction. Obviously the Constitution must be interpreted. Nether side of the "living document" debate disputes that. The question is how should it be interpreted? Should the goal be to understand and represent the intent of those who ratified and amended it (originalism)? Or should the meaning be subject to the values and circumstances of those doing the interpreting?

 

[rightwinger]

The ultimate irony of this thread, of course, as well as the ultimate hypocrisy of conservatives, is that Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller is the epitome of judicial interpretation – where he fabricated out of whole cloth the right to self-defense and the individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense.

Now, I agree with Scalia’s ruling in Heller, he made a compelling and successful argument using primary documents and sources from the Foundation Era as the Framers were in essence silent on the issue; where Scalia contrived the doctrine of how Americans perceived the Second Amendment right at the time of its ratification. But his ruling was nonetheless interpretation, where from the text of the Amendment alone there is no evidence as to a right to self-defense or an individual right to possess a firearm.

And I accept Heller as settled and acknowledged precedent because the doctrine of judicial review authorizes the Supreme Court to indeed determine what the Constitution means, as originally intended by the Framers.

The irony (or perhaps the entirely predictable outcome) of this thread is the fact that it's devolved into irrelevant distraction. Obviously the Constitution must be interpreted. Nether side of the "living document" debate disputes that. The question is how should it be interpreted? Should the goal be to understand and represent the intent of those who ratified and amended it (originalism)? Or should the meaning be subject to the values and circumstances of those doing the interpreting?

Why would we want 18th century aristocrats making decisions on what a 21st century society should do?

 

[dblack]

The ultimate irony of this thread, of course, as well as the ultimate hypocrisy of conservatives, is that Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller is the epitome of judicial interpretation – where he fabricated out of whole cloth the right to self-defense and the individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense.

Now, I agree with Scalia’s ruling in Heller, he made a compelling and successful argument using primary documents and sources from the Foundation Era as the Framers were in essence silent on the issue; where Scalia contrived the doctrine of how Americans perceived the Second Amendment right at the time of its ratification. But his ruling was nonetheless interpretation, where from the text of the Amendment alone there is no evidence as to a right to self-defense or an individual right to possess a firearm.

And I accept Heller as settled and acknowledged precedent because the doctrine of judicial review authorizes the Supreme Court to indeed determine what the Constitution means, as originally intended by the Framers.

The irony (or perhaps the entirely predictable outcome) of this thread is the fact that it's devolved into irrelevant distraction. Obviously the Constitution must be interpreted. Nether side of the "living document" debate disputes that. The question is how should it be interpreted? Should the goal be to understand and represent the intent of those who ratified and amended it (originalism)? Or should the meaning be subject to the values and circumstances of those doing the interpreting?

Why would we want 18th century aristocrats making decisions on what a 21st century society should do?

Why would would we want to be bound by a contract that can be changed by whoever happens to be reading it?

 

[OKTexas]

The ultimate irony of this thread, of course, as well as the ultimate hypocrisy of conservatives, is that Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller is the epitome of judicial interpretation – where he fabricated out of whole cloth the right to self-defense and the individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense.

Now, I agree with Scalia’s ruling in Heller, he made a compelling and successful argument using primary documents and sources from the Foundation Era as the Framers were in essence silent on the issue; where Scalia contrived the doctrine of how Americans perceived the Second Amendment right at the time of its ratification. But his ruling was nonetheless interpretation, where from the text of the Amendment alone there is no evidence as to a right to self-defense or an individual right to possess a firearm.

And I accept Heller as settled and acknowledged precedent because the doctrine of judicial review authorizes the Supreme Court to indeed determine what the Constitution means, as originally intended by the Framers.

The irony (or perhaps the entirely predictable outcome) of this thread is the fact that it's devolved into irrelevant distraction. Obviously the Constitution must be interpreted. Nether side of the "living document" debate disputes that. The question is how should it be interpreted? Should the goal be to understand and represent the intent of those who ratified and amended it (originalism)? Or should the meaning be subject to the values and circumstances of those doing the interpreting?

So it's a choice of using the intended definition, or coming up with a new definition, is that really a valid choice? I think not.

 

[OKTexas]

The ultimate irony of this thread, of course, as well as the ultimate hypocrisy of conservatives, is that Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller is the epitome of judicial interpretation – where he fabricated out of whole cloth the right to self-defense and the individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense.

Now, I agree with Scalia’s ruling in Heller, he made a compelling and successful argument using primary documents and sources from the Foundation Era as the Framers were in essence silent on the issue; where Scalia contrived the doctrine of how Americans perceived the Second Amendment right at the time of its ratification. But his ruling was nonetheless interpretation, where from the text of the Amendment alone there is no evidence as to a right to self-defense or an individual right to possess a firearm.

And I accept Heller as settled and acknowledged precedent because the doctrine of judicial review authorizes the Supreme Court to indeed determine what the Constitution means, as originally intended by the Framers.

The irony (or perhaps the entirely predictable outcome) of this thread is the fact that it's devolved into irrelevant distraction. Obviously the Constitution must be interpreted. Nether side of the "living document" debate disputes that. The question is how should it be interpreted? Should the goal be to understand and represent the intent of those who ratified and amended it (originalism)? Or should the meaning be subject to the values and circumstances of those doing the interpreting?

Why would we want 18th century aristocrats making decisions on what a 21st century society should do?

Because that's what the contract says, don't like it, get out there and amend it, but don't just try to ignore it, I nor millions of others will agree to that.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Isn't the crux of this issue Marbury v. Madison? Does anyone think Saclia would vote to overturn this historic ruling?

Actually not.

Most on the right incorrectly perceive the ruling as the Supreme Court ‘inventing’ the doctrine of judicial review.

The fact is nothing could be further from the truth.

In Marbury the Court merely recognized and codified judicial review where citizens of the new Nation fully expected the courts to review the acts of Congress, and invalidate those found to be repugnant to the Constitution:

[J]udicial review was dramatically better established in the years before Marbury than previously recognized. While there has been a range of opinions about early judicial review, none of the modern commentators has grasped how common it was for courts to invalidate statutes. The most influential modern account asserts that there were five such decisions in state and federal courts in the critical period between the Constitution and Marbury.

The sheer number of these decisions not only belies the notion that the
institution of judicial review was created by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, it also reflects widespread acceptance and application of the doctrine. Moreover, the fact that judicial review was exercised so frequently indicates that courts were not as reluctant to invalidate statutes[.]

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2040&context=facpub

Really?

I don't know of any conservatives of national significance--in politics, government, academia, or the media--who don't appreciate the necessity of or the origins of judicial review. For crying out loud, common law is case law, the origin body of judicial stare decisis of the Anglo-American tradition, which, of course, dates back well before the American Revolution, well before the Republic's body of constitutional case law. Most of the conservatives on this board know that.

You just make this stuff up as you go along, just like you incessantly imagine things in constitutional case law that exist nowhere else in reality but in the dank and feverish echo chamber of your mind.

 

[regent]

What is funny, is that those on these boards the posters that do not want interpretation of the Constitution, immediatley begin interpreting the Constituion to prove their point.

Learn the difference between "reading" and "interpreting".

So where in the Constitution can I read the clause that says the Supreme Court shall interpret the constitution?

 

[OKTexas]

What is funny, is that those on these boards the posters that do not want interpretation of the Constitution, immediatley begin interpreting the Constituion to prove their point.

Learn the difference between "reading" and "interpreting".

So where in the Constitution can I read the clause that says the Supreme Court shall interpret the constitution?

See Article 3, Section 2.