Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[Little-Acorn]

When a nimrod posts something like "In fact, 'case law modifying the Constitution, is flatly unconstitutional," you know the nimrod flatly does not understand the Constitution.

As you can see, the people who want to be able to modify the Constitution merely by case law, have no way to back up their arguments, except namecalling.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you're referring to case law modifying the Constitution, the Supreme Court HAS consent to do that,

they have the consent of the governed, which is basically how democracy works.

Sorry, that's not how the Constitution works. In fact, "case law modifying the Constitution", is flatly unconstitutional.

The ONLY way the Constitution can be modified, is by the procedures listed in Article 5.

We are governed by the Rule of Law (Article 5 of the Constitution), not the "Rule of Men" ("consent of the governed").

Article 5 spells out how the "consent of the governed" must be expressed, to change the Constitution. It offers a couple of methods... but "case law modifying the Constitution" isn't one of them. Lawyers have been trying to do it that way anyway, and hoping they don't get caught. Now they are starting to get caught.

Providing more detail by deciding specific cases is by definition 'modifying', and is also constitutional. In fact its the primary function of the court.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Sorry, that's not how the Constitution works. In fact, "case law modifying the Constitution", is flatly unconstitutional.

The ONLY way the Constitution can be modified, is by the procedures listed in Article 5.

We are governed by the Rule of Law (Article 5 of the Constitution), not the "Rule of Men" ("consent of the governed").

Article 5 spells out how the "consent of the governed" must be expressed, to change the Constitution. It offers a couple of methods... but "case law modifying the Constitution" isn't one of them. Lawyers have been trying to do it that way anyway, and hoping they don't get caught. Now they are starting to get caught.

Providing more detail by deciding specific cases is by definition 'modifying',

No, it's "providing more detail".

and is also constitutional.

Only if it does not change what the Constitution already says.

If it DOES change what the Constitution already says, then it is flatly unconstitutional.

If some judge decides a case and rules that we can have three Presidents instead of one, that is unconstitutional, whether it is part of "case law" or not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When a nimrod posts something like "In fact, 'case law modifying the Constitution, is flatly unconstitutional," you know the nimrod flatly does not understand the Constitution.

As you can see, the people who want to be able to modify the Constitution merely by case law, have no way to back up their arguments, except namecalling.

If it's been done by case law, it's a fait accompli. It doesn't need an argument. People like you always come up with someone overblown drama when things don't go your way.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If we aren't riding horses and doing our weather forecasting ourselves = anti-constitutional. You people make me laugh!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right reactionaries can dish it out but cry when it is returned.

Wussies (I know, I am anti-PC)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry, that's not how the Constitution works. In fact, "case law modifying the Constitution", is flatly unconstitutional.

The ONLY way the Constitution can be modified, is by the procedures listed in Article 5.

We are governed by the Rule of Law (Article 5 of the Constitution), not the "Rule of Men" ("consent of the governed").

Article 5 spells out how the "consent of the governed" must be expressed, to change the Constitution. It offers a couple of methods... but "case law modifying the Constitution" isn't one of them. Lawyers have been trying to do it that way anyway, and hoping they don't get caught. Now they are starting to get caught.

Providing more detail by deciding specific cases is by definition 'modifying',

No, it's "providing more detail".

and is also constitutional.

Only if it does not change what the Constitution already says.

If it DOES change what the Constitution already says, then it is flatly unconstitutional.

If some judge decides a case and rules that we can have three Presidents instead of one, that is unconstitutional, whether it is part of "case law" or not.

Can't change what the Constitution says?

What does the Constitution say about freedom of the press?

The Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press.

Does that protect the publication of child pornography?

Child pornography has been ruled to not be protected by the 1st Amendment. How is that possible? There are no exceptions to freedom of the press in the WORDS of the 1st Amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Does 'freedom of press' permit such organizations to publish sensitive information in time of declared war?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does 'freedom of press' permit such organizations to publish sensitive information in time of declared war?

Based on the OP's argument, every single limitation that the Court has put on free speech by various rulings needed to have been done by Constitutional Amendment;

we would thus have such as the Fire in a Crowded Theatre Amendment.

 

[protectionist]

"Progressivism", in other words, has conservative and liberal wings that want Big Government to enact their agendas.

I smell a strong odor of "everybody does it" coming out of the leftist lie, diversion, and excuse locker. I thought we sprayed for that, long ago.

Of course, there are no conservatives who want Big Government to enact their agenda. In fact, the conservative agenda is to get rid of big government. Or at least to cut it down to the size the Constitution requires... after which it won't be Big any more.

Liberals (in both parties), on the other hand, are fine with using Big Government to enact whatever agenda comes along.

They have a tendency to paint with the broadest brush possible, as JakeStarkey does here, to pretend they have something in common with conservatives, and try to borrow some of the sheen of legitimacy conservatives have in the body politic.

FALSE! Psuedo-Conservative Reaganists espouse small, weak govt, which has nothing to do with REAL Conservatism. In fact, it hampers real Conservatism, by denying the govt the revenue it needs to carry out REAL Conservative activity (such hiring ICE agents, CBP officers, FBI agents, CIA, DEA, military, build prisons, rebuild infrastructure, etc)

And while REAL Conservatives are fighting to CONSERVE America's values, principles and culture, and defend NATIONAL SECURITY, what are the Psuedo-Conservative Reaganists doing ? They're fighting to protect the fortunes of the rich, from taxation. Oh, great.

What the hell doe s that have to do with CONSERVING America's values and defending it ? Answer. NOTHING whatsoever.

 

[protectionist]

Providing more detail by deciding specific cases is by definition 'modifying',

No, it's "providing more detail".

and is also constitutional.

Only if it does not change what the Constitution already says.

If it DOES change what the Constitution already says, then it is flatly unconstitutional.

If some judge decides a case and rules that we can have three Presidents instead of one, that is unconstitutional, whether it is part of "case law" or not.

Can't change what the Constitution says?

What does the Constitution say about freedom of the press?

The Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press.

Does that protect the publication of child pornography?

Child pornography has been ruled to not be protected by the 1st Amendment. How is that possible? There are no exceptions to freedom of the press in the WORDS of the 1st Amendment.

The 1st Amendment is one of the weakest parts of the Constitution. It is riddled with exceptions. (slander, libel, perjury, inciting a riot, obscenity laws, sedition, fighting words, threats, child porn, etc)

On the opposite end, we have the strongest part of the Constitution - the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2), for which there are no exceptions. Muslims often have a problem with this, thinking that they are an exception (Islam being a supremacist ideology). EARTH TO MUSLIMS: The Supremacy Clause has NO EXCEPTIONS.

 

[Erand7899]

Providing more detail by deciding specific cases is by definition 'modifying',

No, it's "providing more detail".

and is also constitutional.

Only if it does not change what the Constitution already says.

If it DOES change what the Constitution already says, then it is flatly unconstitutional.

If some judge decides a case and rules that we can have three Presidents instead of one, that is unconstitutional, whether it is part of "case law" or not.

Can't change what the Constitution says?

What does the Constitution say about freedom of the press?

The Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press.

Does that protect the publication of child pornography?

Child pornography has been ruled to not be protected by the 1st Amendment. How is that possible? There are no exceptions to freedom of the press in the WORDS of the 1st Amendment.

Then, the ruling was a rewriting of the Constitution to insert exemptions where none existed. Judicial activism at its worst.

The proper method would have been to propose a constitutional amendment to establish certain exemptions to the freedom of the press.

 

[bripat9643]

Providing more detail by deciding specific cases is by definition 'modifying',

No, it's "providing more detail".

and is also constitutional.

Only if it does not change what the Constitution already says.

If it DOES change what the Constitution already says, then it is flatly unconstitutional.

If some judge decides a case and rules that we can have three Presidents instead of one, that is unconstitutional, whether it is part of "case law" or not.

Can't change what the Constitution says?

What does the Constitution say about freedom of the press?

The Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press.

Does that protect the publication of child pornography?

Child pornography has been ruled to not be protected by the 1st Amendment. How is that possible? There are no exceptions to freedom of the press in the WORDS of the 1st Amendment.

Child pornography is the result of committing a crime against a child. It's like selling an elephant tusk when it's illegal to kill elephants. It's the fact of the crime against the child that makes it illegal. Is cartoon child pornography illegal? No, because no one was harmed by making it.

 

[bripat9643]

When a nimrod posts something like "In fact, 'case law modifying the Constitution, is flatly unconstitutional," you know the nimrod flatly does not understand the Constitution.

As you can see, the people who want to be able to modify the Constitution merely by case law, have no way to back up their arguments, except namecalling.

If it's been done by case law, it's a fait accompli. It doesn't need an argument. People like you always come up with someone overblown drama when things don't go your way.

I think you've moved up in the running for the biggest idiot in the forum.

 

[OKTexas]

Providing more detail by deciding specific cases is by definition 'modifying',

No, it's "providing more detail".

and is also constitutional.

Only if it does not change what the Constitution already says.

If it DOES change what the Constitution already says, then it is flatly unconstitutional.

If some judge decides a case and rules that we can have three Presidents instead of one, that is unconstitutional, whether it is part of "case law" or not.

Can't change what the Constitution says?

What does the Constitution say about freedom of the press?

The Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press.

Does that protect the publication of child pornography?

Child pornography has been ruled to not be protected by the 1st Amendment. How is that possible? There are no exceptions to freedom of the press in the WORDS of the 1st Amendment.

Why is it you commies always go right to the absurd when you have nothing left? The constitution says congress shall not abridge the freedom of the press, as the press was understood at the time the constitution was written and ratified. Were they publishing child porn for routine consumption at that time in our history? I think not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The 1st Amendment is one of the weakest parts of the Constitution. It is riddled with exceptions. (slander, libel, perjury, inciting a riot, obscenity laws, sedition, fighting words, threats, child porn, etc)

On the opposite end, we have the strongest part of the Constitution - the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2), for which there are no exceptions. Muslims often have a problem with this, thinking that they are an exception (Islam being a supremacist ideology). EARTH TO MUSLIMS: The Supremacy Clause has NO EXCEPTIONS.

The view people need to take of rights, the clauses of which take AWAY the power of the US govt, compared to the rest of the constitution which empowers the federal govt, is that you have the right to do anything, as long as you don't hurt others.

The 1A has many exceptions because the theory of rights says that the right to free speech doesn't protect an individual harming other. So child pornography clearly harms children. Slander harms the person being slandered, treason harms the country and so on.

Every right has a limitation. It doesn't matter if there are considered loads of exceptions or very few, the limitations are based on harm.

The 2A limits who can own weapons, those convicted in a court can have their arms taken off them because they have proven they not necessarily for the ideals of the land, and a potential danger. The same with the right to bear arms, the right to be in the militia.

However some rights are not infringed upon after due process, whereas some are. It all depends on what it is about.

You need a body to interpret the constitution because, quite frankly, millions of Americans don't have a clue about the constitution, and should you expect them to? Back in the day these were people who couldn't even read, let alone figure out the constitution, the founders gave judicial power but didn't explain it, probably because they just thought it was quite obvious what judicial power was.

The question of whether someone thinks the constitution is a living document or not depends on how they set out their argument. Scala might be saying that the founding fathers intentions should be taken into account, and be the main focus, i wouldn't disagree with this.
However the constitution was designed to live with the age.

So, the 1A was designed to allow people to talk about politics. Do people still have the right to talk? Yes they do, nothing has changed, however the internet, telephones etc exist now, and the constitution has to be interpreted to consider how this new technology works within the intentions of the founding fathers.

 

[dblack]

Does 'freedom of press' permit such organizations to publish sensitive information in time of declared war?

Based on the OP's argument, every single limitation that the Court has put on free speech by various rulings needed to have been done by Constitutional Amendment;

we would thus have such as the Fire in a Crowded Theatre Amendment.

Why must the ignorance persist??? The point of the OP, and the argument against 'living document' doctrine in general, isn't whether the Constitution should be interpreted, or even adapted. Reality requires it. The argument is over what principles should guide that interpretation. Should the goal be to accurately reflect the intent of the authors of the Constitution and it's duly ratified amendments (originalism)? Or should such interpretation be based on the values and needs of those doing the interpreting (living document)?

That is the question, and both sides here are ignoring it in favor of a dimwitted, and irrelevant, argument.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You got it backasswards Jake. The Constitution is a contract of sovereignty that supersedes legislatures and courts. Fuck with it, and the contract is null and void. In other words, We the People are under no obligation to abide government that fails to honor its obligations, regardless of how our representatives vote.

Contracts have to be declared null and void by whatever authority has the jurisdiction and power to do so.

All you're talking about is a person's right to lawlessness.

The nature of a contract is that it's a mutual agreement. If either side fails to abide by it, it's no longer binding. That's not really controversial, is it? Are you really comfortable being bound to a contract that can be modified without your consent?

"Since a contract is a legally binding agreement, in the typical scenario, once you enter into a contract with another person or business, you and the other party are both expected to fulfill the terms of the contract. But it's possible for an otherwise valid contract to be found unenforceable in the eyes of the law, and this article looks at some common situations where that might be the case": See,

Unenforceable Contracts: What to Watch Out For | Nolo.com

 

[ScienceRocks]

Does 'freedom of press' permit such organizations to publish sensitive information in time of declared war?

Based on the OP's argument, every single limitation that the Court has put on free speech by various rulings needed to have been done by Constitutional Amendment;

we would thus have such as the Fire in a Crowded Theatre Amendment.

These people want to go back pre-current constitution to 1781-1788. They believe that the federal government has no power to regulate and everything should be done by constitutional amendment. Their understanding of our constitution is laughable!

You can't run a first world country this way...Yet there's a lot of them!

 

[ScienceRocks]

"Progressivism", in other words, has conservative and liberal wings that want Big Government to enact their agendas.

I smell a strong odor of "everybody does it" coming out of the leftist lie, diversion, and excuse locker. I thought we sprayed for that, long ago.

Of course, there are no conservatives who want Big Government to enact their agenda. In fact, the conservative agenda is to get rid of big government. Or at least to cut it down to the size the Constitution requires... after which it won't be Big any more.

Liberals (in both parties), on the other hand, are fine with using Big Government to enact whatever agenda comes along.

They have a tendency to paint with the broadest brush possible, as JakeStarkey does here, to pretend they have something in common with conservatives, and try to borrow some of the sheen of legitimacy conservatives have in the body politic.

FALSE! Psuedo-Conservative Reaganists espouse small, weak govt, which has nothing to do with REAL Conservatism. In fact, it hampers real Conservatism, by denying the govt the revenue it needs to carry out REAL Conservative activity (such hiring ICE agents, CBP officers, FBI agents, CIA, DEA, military, build prisons, rebuild infrastructure, etc)

And while REAL Conservatives are fighting to CONSERVE America's values, principles and culture, and defend NATIONAL SECURITY, what are the Psuedo-Conservative Reaganists doing ? They're fighting to protect the fortunes of the rich, from taxation. Oh, great.

What the hell doe s that have to do with CONSERVING America's values and defending it ? Answer. NOTHING whatsoever.

Exactly,

You can't name a first world nation that doesn't do as you said. Real conservatives would fight for the 1940's, 1950's and early 60's and some modern common sense! Modern common sense like clean air, water and maybe a few other things.

The government still invested big time within infrastructure, science, r&d and towards a better America. The difference was jenny wasn't being shown how to put a pickle in a condom! Those times we were serious about being number one!