Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[Little-Acorn]

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)

Invariably, when leftists try to cut down conservatism, they wind up complaining that it's not liberal enough, as "protectionist" does here, trying to ascribe state functions to the Federal government and then whining that there's not enough money to do it all.

And while REAL Conservatives are fighting to CONSERVE America's values,

They often reveal their lack of understanding of "conservatism", by trying to use the misnomer first applied by big-govt pushers as a literal description, when it hasn't been true from Day 1.

They're fighting to protect the fortunes of the rich, from taxation. Oh, great.

They usually reveal themselves most fully, when they expose their desire to tax wealthy people simply for the sin of being wealthy people.

Similar to the bank robber who, when asked why he kept robbing banks, replied, "Because that's where the money is!" That was his only reason for committing the crimes he did, just as it's the big-govt pushers' only reason.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

Or to leave the matter to states and localities to regulate, since the 1st amendment was written to apply ONLY to the Fed govt ("Congress").

The 14th amendment messed up this carefully-made distinction, which is why parts of the 14th should be rewritten.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Fighting for the early 19th century I see. LOL

You people live in the past with failed idea's that would turn this country into a joke. Humans rights be damned within your mind.

 

[bripat9643]

Fighting for the early 19th century I see. LOL

You people live in the past with failed idea's that would turn this country into a joke. Humans rights be damned within your mind.

So if you oppose the policies implemented by the government of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, does that mean you are "Fighting for the early 19th century?"

 

[Little-Acorn]

The question is not what *I* think. "Contumacious" insisted that:

The Constitution is a LIBERTARIAN DOCUMENT
No authority was granted to invade every country on the face of mother earth
no authority was granted to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations

When I pointed out to him that maybe the Constitution intended the military to do more than what it specifically spelled out, he called me a liberal and accused me of trying to put new laws in place, yada yada. I pointed out that the Const didn't even explicitly say the U.S. Military could kill ANYBODY, yet the Const does specifically authorize a military. I then asked him if this meant the U.S. Military acted unconstitutionally when it shot Osama Bin Laden.

He changed the question and said that they could capture him, indict him, and try him. I pointed out that they didn't capture, indict, or try him, they simply killed him. Then restated my original question, about simply killing Bin Laden. I'm awaiting his reply.

This is all in pursuance of my statement that Libertarians are conservatives, except for their kooky foreign-policy stance. This questions gets to the heart of that Libertarian kookiness. So far, "Contumacious" is proving my statement. I await his further discussion.

Still waiting.

"Contumacious" stated that, since the Constitution doesn't explicitly authorize the Govt to intervene in other countries' internal affairs, therefore such intervention was forbidden to the Fed govt. I pointed out to him that the Const didn't explicitly authorize the Military to do anything at all, especially shoot people. He seemed to become suddenly uninterested in talking about Libertarian foreign policy.

Anybody seen him since?

 

[Contumacious]

So when the U.S. Military killed, say, Osama bin Laden, they were acting unconstitutionally?

Absolutely.

The individual should been arrested, indicted, tried and if the allegations were proved then executed.

.

But the U.S. Military did not arrest him, did not indict him, did not try him. They simply filled him full of holes.

Where does the Constitution explicitly give the U.S. Military the authorization to kill anybody?

That is by definition what the military does. So when the military is involved the authority is implied.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, it's "providing more detail".


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.

What would you call that? The Captain Obvious amendment?

 

[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.

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!

Conservatives want to effectively (or in some cases literally) break the country up into smaller pieces,

solely for the sake of creating subsets of the population wherein the conservatives wouild be the majority,

and thus be able to impose their own brand of what they call tyranny.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Or to leave the matter to states and localities to regulate, since the 1st amendment was written to apply ONLY to the Fed govt ("Congress").

The 14th amendment messed up this carefully-made distinction, which is why parts of the 14th should be rewritten.

So you want a country where one state, if the demographics were such as to support it, could impose Sharia law.

Indeed! lol

 

[Little-Acorn]

Conservatives want to effectively (or in some cases literally) break the country up into smaller pieces,

That was done long ago. They're called "states". Liberals have been trying to reduce their effectiveness, and transfer their power to the Fed govt, ever since.

solely for the sake of creating subsets of the population wherein the conservatives wouild be the majority,

Where do you get this silly tripe?

When you run out of facts, you seem comfortable in making up new ones.

But do you actually expect anyone to believe them?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Absolutely.

The individual should been arrested, indicted, tried and if the allegations were proved then executed.

But the U.S. Military did not arrest him, did not indict him, did not try him. They simply filled him full of holes.

Where does the Constitution explicitly give the U.S. Military the authorization to kill anybody?

That is by definition what the military does. So when the military is involved the authority is implied.

So we've established that the military is authorized to do things not explicitly listed in the Constitution. That's progress. Can I count on you to talk to your fellow Libertarians and bring them over to this point of view?

Next question: Would the things the military is authorized to do, that are not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, include using covert means to search out foreign threats to the United States?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives want to effectively (or in some cases literally) break the country up into smaller pieces,

That was done long ago. They're called "states". Liberals have been trying to reduce their effectiveness, and transfer their power to the Fed govt, ever since.

solely for the sake of creating subsets of the population wherein the conservatives wouild be the majority,

Where do you get this silly tripe?

When you run out of facts, you seem comfortable in making up new ones.

But do you actually expect anyone to believe them?

I got the idea from James Madison. You know, one of those founders you claim to know the intent of.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Conservatives want to effectively (or in some cases literally) break the country up into smaller pieces,

That was done long ago. They're called "states". Liberals have been trying to reduce their effectiveness, and transfer their power to the Fed govt, ever since.

solely for the sake of creating subsets of the population wherein the conservatives wouild be the majority,

Where do you get this silly tripe?

When you run out of facts, you seem comfortable in making up new ones.

But do you actually expect anyone to believe them?

I got the idea from James Madison. You know, one of those founders you claim to know the intent of.

Why am I not surprised that you didn't provide the quote where Madison said it?

Because, of course, he didn't.

See above comment about your making up "facts".

 

[bendog]

The problem of trying to start any debate with Scalia is that Scalia's view of judicial restrait is pretty much any law he doesn't like is unconstitutional. That doesn't make him satan, or even make him hypocritical beyond laughing about "original intent."

For example, he's beyond intolerant of homosexuals, even though the founders included more than one sodomist, not to mention Jefferson and Hemmings. And forget abortion. There's simply no "intent" to be found.

That doesn't mean liberals haven't done bat shite crazy stuff. But if consistency is the gold standard, Scalia is dross.

 

[Contumacious]

The US Constitution grants powers if a power or authority is not granted then the authority was denied.

So when the U.S. Military killed, say, Osama bin Laden, they were acting unconstitutionally?

Of course. Osama Bin Laden orchestrated an attack on American citizens in America proper. He committed an act of war as well as mass murder.

Did he REALLY?

Responsibility for the September 11 attacks


Two weeks after the September 11 attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation connected the hijackers to al-Qaeda,[1] a global, decentralized terrorist network. In a number of video, audio, interview and printed statements, senior members of al-Qaeda have also asserted responsibility for organizing the September 11 attacks.[2][3][4] It is believed that Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Mohammed Atef were the ones who plotted the attacks after meeting together in 1999[5] It is also believed Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was the one who planned the attacks[5] and that Atef was the one who organized the hijackers.[5]

Isn't the standard GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?

.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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..

BULLSHIT.

The Intellectual Incoherence of Conservatism


Conservatives, Buckley wrote, were duty-bound to promote "the extensive and productive tax laws that are needed to support a vigorous anti-Communist foreign policy," as well as the "large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington."


As for most of the leaders of the so-called Christian Right and the "moral majority," they simply desire the replacement of the current, left-liberal elite in charge of national education by another one, i.e., themselves. "From Burke on," Robert Nisbet has criticized this posture, "it has been a conservative precept and a sociological principle since Auguste Comte that the surest way of weakening the family, or any vital social group, is for the government to assume, and then monopolize, the family's historic functions."

.

You fail to make an important distinction. Traditional conservatism as informed by Lockean sociopolitical theory eschews positive rights, powerful centralized government, military adventurism and foreign entanglements. It's socially conservative in terms of natural and social contract law, but only insofar as the sanctity of human life and the integrity of the biological family of nature are concerned, as these are the first principles of private property. In that same vein, it holds that the central duties of the government are to provide for domestic policing, national defense, border security, and basic, public infrastructure for communication and transportation, for example, as distinguished from libertarianism. Beyond that, for the most part, it aggressively asserts ideological and economic laissez-faire.

Mainstream American conservatism of today is a different animal, infinitely superior to progressivism, to be sure, but hardly the stuff of traditional theory. Think Jeffersonian democracy, which emphasizes the values and principles of republicanism or think the core membership of the Tea Party, the social conservatives who lean toward libertarianism.

Generally, American orthodox Christians of today have no interest whatsoever in the government controlling education beyond coordinating its funding, whether it be under their thumb or lefty's. Quite the opposite is true. The most passionate proponents of school-choice are orthodox Christians. You've been duped.

In the meantime, as long as lefty insists on exerting initial, ideological force (or coercion) in the public schools as he resists educational freedom and strives to monopolize funding, Christians reserve the natural right to exert defensive, ideological counterforce in the same. Your characterization of their justifiable response is shortsighted and biased.

Indeed, the father of Anglo-American conservatism Edmund Burke did understand that "the surest way of weakening the family, or any vital social group, is for the government to assume, and then monopolize, the family's historic functions", including education. Orthodox Christians have understood this since Christ, while the Jews have understood this since Moses.
________________________

An aside:

I've never been a fan of Nisbet, who's generally regarded to be a conservative sociological philosopher of sorts, as he criticized the construct of individualism on the grounds that it undermined the force of community resistance against the usurpative tendencies of the central government. Nisbet never really understood the dynamics of individualism within the community for the common defense of a free people . . . anymore than his decidedly collectivist mentor Durkheim did, whose mentor was the collectivist Comte, who influenced Karl Marx's thinking.

Nisbet failed to distinguish the difference between the radical individualism of the secular, Continental European tradition and the rugged individualism of the Anglo-American tradition. The former, in terms of governance, is inevitably collectivist and statist in nature, as it asserts the government-empowering abuse of positive rights against the prerogatives of free association and private property.

Unlike Nisbet, Burke knew the difference, as he more comprehensibly understood the fundamental realities of human nature and the real-world sociopolitical dynamics thereof within the framework of a representative republic of inalienable rights. Burke greatly admired Locke and his political theory.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Little-Acorn wants us to live as if it is 1801.

It is not, and we won't.

L-A is not a conservative, merely a faux libertarian.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The problem of trying to start any debate with Scalia is that Scalia's view of judicial restrait is pretty much any law he doesn't like is unconstitutional. That doesn't make him satan, or even make him hypocritical beyond laughing about "original intent."

For example, he's beyond intolerant of homosexuals, even though the founders included more than one sodomist, not to mention Jefferson and Hemmings. And forget abortion. There's simply no "intent" to be found.

That doesn't mean liberals haven't done bat shite crazy stuff. But if consistency is the gold standard, Scalia is dross.

So I can write you off as one who is utterly clueless about the actual outcomes of asserting positive rights on the basis of homosexual orientation or behavior, and about the prerequisites of a sustainably free and stable society, right?

Some folks never get beyond slogans, let alone first principles.

Prufrock's Lair: Abortion on Demand, Homosexual "Marriage": what will they think of next?

 

[Contumacious]

Absolutely.

The individual should been arrested, indicted, tried and if the allegations were proved then executed.

.

But the U.S. Military did not arrest him, did not indict him, did not try him. They simply filled him full of holes.

Where does the Constitution explicitly give the U.S. Military the authorization to kill anybody?

You think we needed a constitutional amendment to defend ourselves militarily against al qaeda after 9/11?

What is Al Qaeda? What country do they represent? How do you know as a MATTER OF FACT that those folks were member of AlQaeda?

.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Little-Acorn wants us to live as if it is 1801.

It is not, and we won't.

L-A is not a conservative, merely a faux libertarian.

Do you frequently lapse into this kind of hysterical ranting when you lose the argument?

Help is available.