Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[The T]

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.

Yeah...we'd have a heap more liberty than we do now, huh fakey?

DIPSHIT.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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.

Nonsense.

The Constitution doesn’t specify what ‘size’ the government is supposed to be. The notion of ‘small’ or ‘less’ government as perceived by conservatives is nothing more than a rightwing contrivance.

The Constitution addresses only the nature of government and its relationship with various entities. It affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)), it affords Congress regulatory authority (Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)), and it establishes the relationship between the people and their National government, where it disallows the states to interfere with that relationship (US Term Limits v. Thornton (1995)). Last, it addresses the relationship between the National government and state governments, where the Federal Constitution, its case law, acts of Congress, and the rulings of Federal courts are supreme, and the laws and authority of the states limited accordingly (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

Moreover, there is no evidence that conservatives seek ‘less’ or ‘smaller’ government, in fact the opposite is true. Between 2001 and 2007, for example, we saw conservatives create more government agencies, expand the size and authority of government, and use ‘big’ government to promote their agenda of limiting civil liberties, enhancing police powers (Boumediene v. Bush (2008)), and expanding the authority of the presidency.

And at the state and local level we see conservatives likewise work to expand the size and authority of government at the expense of citizens’ civil liberties, as most on the right seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights, women their privacy rights, and African-Americans and other minorities their voting rights.

With regard to conservative efforts to expand the size and power of government concerning privacy rights, for example, in 2012 the Oklahoma Supreme Court was compelled to strike down that state’s un-Constitutional law placing an undue burden on a woman’s right to decide whether to have a child or not, absent interference from the state (Pruitt v. Nova Health Systems, 12-1170)). So egregious was this violation of the right to privacy that last November the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari, refusing to review the case.

Given this and other ample evidence, it’s clear that conservatives’ claims of being advocates of ‘less government’ is simply not true, as they’re perfectly willing to use the power of the state to advance their agenda at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

This country is a fucking joke compared to what it could have been, people like you are just too stupid to realize that fact. But that's ok, just keep on spewing your nonsense like a freaking broken record and we'll keep laughing at your ignorant ass while working to fix the crap your kind have fucked up. Have a great day, YA Hear!

 

[Contumacious]

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. .

John Locke was the father of CLASSICAL LIBERALISM. So if you mean to say that initially some individuals wished to CONSERVE his philosophy then we are in agreement.

But many individuals who have become GOVERNMENT SUPREMACISTS are still calling themselves conservatives.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"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.

Nonsense.

The Constitution doesn’t specify what ‘size’ the government is supposed to be. The notion of ‘small’ or ‘less’ government as perceived by conservatives is nothing more than a rightwing contrivance.

The Constitution addresses only the nature of government and its relationship with various entities. It affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)), it affords Congress regulatory authority (Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)), and it establishes the relationship between the people and their National government, where it disallows the states to interfere with that relationship (US Term Limits v. Thornton (1995)). Last, it addresses the relationship between the National government and state governments, where the Federal Constitution, its case law, acts of Congress, and the rulings of Federal courts are supreme, and the laws and authority of the states limited accordingly (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

Moreover, there is no evidence that conservatives seek ‘less’ or ‘smaller’ government, in fact the opposite is true. Between 2001 and 2007, for example, we saw conservatives create more government agencies, expand the size and authority of government, and use ‘big’ government to promote their agenda of limiting civil liberties, enhancing police powers (Boumediene v. Bush (2008)), and expanding the authority of the presidency.

And at the state and local level we see conservatives likewise work to expand the size and authority of government at the expense of citizens’ civil liberties, as most on the right seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights, women their privacy rights, and African-Americans and other minorities their voting rights.

With regard to conservative efforts to expand the size and power of government concerning privacy rights, for example, in 2012 the Oklahoma Supreme Court was compelled to strike down that state’s un-Constitutional law placing an undue burden on a woman’s right to decide whether to have a child or not, absent interference from the state (Pruitt v. Nova Health Systems, 12-1170)). So egregious was this violation of the right to privacy that last November the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari, refusing to review the case.

Given this and other ample evidence, it’s clear that conservatives’ claims of being advocates of ‘less government’ is simply not true, as they’re perfectly willing to use the power of the state to advance their agenda at the expense of individual liberty.

Well, I'm a conservative in the Lockean tradition (the classical liberalism of rugged individualism and laissez-faire), so you've got nothin' on me, as I and my cohorts, including the core membership of the Tea Party, despise virtually everything so-called conservatives like Bush stand for and have perpetrated on this country along side their progressive cohorts in the Democrat Party. And as for your complaints concerning the expansion of the government's police powers, an abomination that on another thread you essentially embraced, Obama and his progressive fellow travelers in Congress are Bush and the Republican establishment on steroids!

You know very well that a significant number of the conservatives on this board and throughout the country think and feel the same way. You know very well that the core membership of the Tea Party, for example, is at war with the Republican establishment for the soul of the Party. It's the Goldwater-Reagan revolution all over again, only this time around it's more at a Jeffersonian revolution. No need for a hyphen or another name. You know very well that the big-government Republicans and traditional conservatives are not of the same species at all as you pull your bait-and-switch shenanigans about there being "no evidence that conservatives seek 'less' or 'smaller' government.

And you know very well that you despise everything that I and my cohorts stand for, Mr. Statist.

Special treatment:

“And at the state and local level we see conservatives likewise work to expand the size and authority of government at the expense of citizens’ civil liberties, as most on the right seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights, women their privacy rights, and African-Americans and other minorities their voting rights.”

Nonsense.

You're talking about an illegitimate regime of positive rights imposed by a government of expanded power and authority against the prerogatives of free association and private property, including the right of the people to defend the integrity of the ballot box and that of the nation's sovereignty, Mr. Statist.

“With regard to conservative efforts to expand the size and power of government concerning privacy rights, for example, in 2012 the Oklahoma Supreme Court was compelled to strike down that state’s un-Constitutional law placing an undue burden on a woman’s right to decide whether to have a child or not, absent interference from the state (Pruitt v. Nova Health Systems, 12-1170)). So egregious was this violation of the right to privacy that last November the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari, refusing to review the case.”

Yeah, well, the real underlying problem goes to the Court's outrageous disregard in Roe v. Wade for the right of the several states and the people thereof to defend the terms of the original social contract concerning the sanctity of human life:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/345437-a-culture-of-intolerance-14.html#post8788655

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/345437-a-culture-of-intolerance-18.html#post8790959

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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. .

John Locke was the father of CLASSICAL LIBERALISM. So if you mean to say that initially some individuals wished to CONSERVE his philosophy then we are in agreement.

But many individuals who have become GOVERNMENT SUPREMACISTS are still calling themselves conservatives.

.

Yes, Locke is. Did you misread me? Within the Lockean school of thought, Burke was the father of Anglo-American conservatism. I didn't say anything about Locke being the father of that . . . though, I suppose, as the father of classical liberalism, he's the grandfather of Burkean conservatism, which is in fact classical liberalism as asserted against the collectivist equalitarianism of the Rousseauean noble savages of the French Revolution, a.k.a. the pitchfork wielding Jacobins.

That's Clayton Jones all day long.

As for the rest. . . .

Establishment Republicans have been claiming to be conservatives for years. That doesn't impinge upon the integrity of classical liberalism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.



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".

"The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party;

and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression."


Madison, Federalist 10

The Federalist (Dawson)/10 - Wikisource, the free online library

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The basic premise that the founders had some sort of consensus of 'intent' with the framing of the Constitution is false to begin with.

The Congress in 1798 that even included framers of the Constitution passed the Alien and Sedition Act and then they proceeded to get into a big political battle over whether or not it violated the 1st Amendment.

 

[Contumacious]

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. .

John Locke was the father of CLASSICAL LIBERALISM. So if you mean to say that initially some individuals wished to CONSERVE his philosophy then we are in agreement.

But many individuals who have become GOVERNMENT SUPREMACISTS are still calling themselves conservatives.

.

Yes, Locke is. Did you misread me? Within the Lockean school of thought, Burke was the father of Anglo-American conservatism. I didn't say anything about Locke being the father of that . . . though, I suppose, as the father of classical liberalism, he's the grandfather of Burkean conservatism, which is in fact classical liberalism as asserted against the collectivist equalitarianism of the Rousseauean noble savages of the French Revolution, a.k.a. the pitchfork wielding Jacobins.

That's Clayton Jones all day long.

As for the rest. . . .

Establishment Republicans have been claiming to be conservatives for years. That doesn't impinge upon the integrity of classical liberalism.

True.

The government supremacists use their position to claim that you can support the welfare/warfare police state and still be a conservative.

.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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?

Well?

 

[Little-Acorn]

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?

"Contumacious" seems to be very reluctant to answer these questions. But he deserves every opportunity. I'm sure he'll get around to this one in time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

However, it's interpretation is

Pretty sure it isn't. Living organisms all eat, breathe, shit, and die. Unless you can show me how any of that occurs in interpreting the Constitution you are going to look really stupid.