Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[paperview]

Yes, Georges Coat of Tyranny....that would be the King for those of you who are slow...

Freedom however, is a garment that is always in style and fits to perfection.. -- Me.I really like that. I'm going to coin that one....

Er, Jefferson was talking about laws and the Constitution...

The full quote:

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.

As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -

And what do you think he was speaking too, when he made these remarks?

Jefferson and the voting Continental Congress did not abolish change to our Constitution. They made it impervious to whim or fads....

The Amendment process is what the progressives are always going on about and how they hate it. They want to change the Constitution by a mere majority vote in a Congress that they control, under a President they approve.

In fact, the Amendment process is designed to invoke deep debate, and take decades, if not generations. This is so that the whims and stupidity of the young and emotional do not override the overall architecture of the Constitution. Which is limited and restricted government, and the power residing in the peoples hands.

Nice backtrack. You thought Jefferson was referring to the King. It's right there. You think we can't read?

The 18th amendment was passed in some 13 months.

The 26th took just three months and ten days.

The average time for Amendment passage is 1 year, 8 months.

Also, a number of Amendments have a time limit (7 years)

Generations. lol.

There was one Amendment that was passed a few decades ago that took near the whole span of this country's history to be ratified.

It was introduced in September 1789 -- and was ratified ....

in 1992.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In fact, they intended it to live forever. You see, the Constitution is an instrument that does one thing, and it does it regardless of the current 'fad'.

That is put limits and shackles on government. The fact that the Amendment process takes decades instead of months proves that while the foundation is solid and necessary, what we learn from that and our ability to change is is slow, and considered.

As it should be.

This is the conservative's scam. Declare that the Constitution only means what conservatives think it means,

and then claim that in order for it to mean otherwise you have to amend it.

That's not the argument. Debate over interpretation is legitimate. "Living document" proponents want to change the meaning as needed, without going through the amendment process. That just "cheating".

It's a circular argument. Who is going to decide that the Supreme Court made a 'living document' ruling?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In fact, they intended it to live forever.

That's just nonsense, and means you don't know of the actual Founders. They didn't think the nation would live long let alone the founding document.

I'm not the one spouting nonsense. The Founders fully intended people of honor to fight and preserve the intent and meaning of the country they bled for. The fact that you would think that a people who lived then would believe otherwise shows you have been emasculated by today's world.

These were men who would draw steel for an impingement on their honor. They believed fully in what they did was right and that the creation of this new country was right, just and worthy of preservation. They belived that the document they created was worth going on forever. Or for as long as we had the honor and courage to hold it.

In that they may have erred. We no longer seem to be a people of reason, honor, or values. Only a people of the 'now'.

Where do you guys get this hero crap from? It's not in any way historical. It's not who they were and not what they said. Really, go read them before you say any other total nonsense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In fact, they intended it to live forever. You see, the Constitution is an instrument that does one thing, and it does it regardless of the current 'fad'.

That is put limits and shackles on government. The fact that the Amendment process takes decades instead of months proves that while the foundation is solid and necessary, what we learn from that and our ability to change is is slow, and considered.

As it should be.

This is the conservative's scam. Declare that the Constitution only means what conservatives think it means,

and then claim that in order for it to mean otherwise you have to amend it.

That's not the argument. Debate over interpretation is legitimate. "Living document" proponents want to change the meaning as needed, without going through the amendment process. That just "cheating".

Justice Scalia has said that the 14th amendment doesn't protect equal rights for women, because the intent of it was to provide equal rights for blacks only.

Is he right?

 

[paperview]

This is the conservative's scam. Declare that the Constitution only means what conservatives think it means,

and then claim that in order for it to mean otherwise you have to amend it.

That's not the argument. Debate over interpretation is legitimate. "Living document" proponents want to change the meaning as needed, without going through the amendment process. That just "cheating".

Justice Scalia has said that the 14th amendment doesn't protect equal rights for women, because the intent of it was to provide equal rights for blacks only.

Is he right?

My favorite was Scalia, while upholding the right of the state to tell consenting adults who they could fuck, allowing states to infringe on people's liberty in their own houses -- said we may as well get rid of "State laws against masturbation..."

 

[Darkwind]

Er, Jefferson was talking about laws and the Constitution...

The full quote:

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.

As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -

And what do you think he was speaking too, when he made these remarks?

Jefferson and the voting Continental Congress did not abolish change to our Constitution. They made it impervious to whim or fads....

The Amendment process is what the progressives are always going on about and how they hate it. They want to change the Constitution by a mere majority vote in a Congress that they control, under a President they approve.

In fact, the Amendment process is designed to invoke deep debate, and take decades, if not generations. This is so that the whims and stupidity of the young and emotional do not override the overall architecture of the Constitution. Which is limited and restricted government, and the power residing in the peoples hands.

Nice backtrack. You thought Jefferson was referring to the King. It's right there. You think we can't read?

The 18th amendment was passed in some 13 months.

The 26th took just three months and ten days.

The average time for Amendment passage is 1 year, 8 months.

Also, a number of Amendments have a time limit (7 years)

Generations. lol.

There was one Amendment that was passed a few decades ago that took near the whole span of this country's history to be passed.

It was introduced in September 1789 -- and was ratified ....

in 1992.

Nice deflection. He WAS referring to the King....why do you think I'd run away from the truth? Are you unable to infer motivation and conviction from events in a persons life? Wow.

So...1 year and 8 months....I'll take your word for it...though I'd like to see the source...This means that you can point to two...count them, two Amendments that happened rapidly...the 18th and the 26th...

The 18th....how did that work out for us? Took 13 months to pass and gave us such things as 'speak easy's' and organized crime...and later, Ricco laws....yeah, speedy passage of that amendment sure helped....btw...what amendment was it that repealled the 18th? Seriously....if you are going to make a case for rapid deployment of amendments and changes to the Constitution, I'd not use the 18th...

So..the 26th...an age of voting amendment....They were so quick to pass that amendment that we now have children who can die for our country, but can't even drink a beer....well thought out....I'm sure is saved many lives and made major improvements on the restrictions placed upon government....There was, however, a major part of that amendment that went directly to restricting government which made it essential. That was to give the people under 18 a voice in who can or cannot be compelled to go to war....So, I'll agree..that was a good change...

But you missed the entire thrust of My post...the intent of the Founders was to put limits on how fast an amendment could be passed...obviously, not enough. Changes to the Constitution cannot be done based upon fads....I find it interesting that out of the 27 amendments, you found two that were done fast....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

Scalia’s entitled to his opinion, as is every other American, and alone his opinion carries no more authority or weight than any other American’s; and his opinion does not hold with the facts and evidence concerning the Constitution.

Justice Kennedy’s understanding of the Framers’ intent is the most accurate, as he expressed in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

The Framers correctly understood that it would be impossible to incorporate a finite ‘list’ of citizens’ protected rights, or have a comprehensive enumeration of government’s authority, where it is the principles enshrined in the Constitution which remain constant, allowing Americans to realize manifestations of individual liberty the Framers sought not to identify in total, and wisely so.

The Constitution is, therefore, neither ‘living’ nor ‘static,’ it is not a mere ‘blueprint’ of government, it is more than just “what it says and doesn't say…” It is a document of the law, the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence seeking to establish a relationship between government and those governed were citizens’ civil liberties are safeguarded.

But the Constitution is not solely a ‘straightjacket’ on government, it acknowledges the legitimate role of government in civil society, by affording Congress powers both enumerated and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)), where acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (US v. Lopez (1995)), and where the laws enacted by Congress and the rulings of Federal courts are supreme to the laws and measures of the states and local jurisdictions (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

The interpretive authority of the courts is beyond dispute, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, and as practiced by Colonial courts well over a century before the Foundation Era (Marbury v. Madison (1803)). Judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts is not an ‘invention’ of the Supreme Court, as the Court merely codified a long-standing legal doctrine where Americans of the Framing Period fully expected the courts to review acts of Congress and invalidate those acts repugnant to the Constitution.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court; the Founding Document’s very construct, history of its composition, and foundation on English common law dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II is indisputable evidence of that, to argue otherwise is to be ignorant of these facts, and seeks only to promote a partisan agenda, having nothing to do with the Constitution and its meaning.

 

[bedowin62]

lots of lib morons here; projecting their sins onto others.

your messiah obama thinks the Constitution is "just a g_damn piece of paper!!"

true story

 

[bripat9643]

Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself

This Conservative does....guess that shoots your quip all to hell...

If your name is bripat and you sport a toddler flipping the bird as your avi, I suppose so.

You seem to have an obsession with me. Are you a stalker?

 

[Darkwind]

That's just nonsense, and means you don't know of the actual Founders. They didn't think the nation would live long let alone the founding document.

I'm not the one spouting nonsense. The Founders fully intended people of honor to fight and preserve the intent and meaning of the country they bled for. The fact that you would think that a people who lived then would believe otherwise shows you have been emasculated by today's world.

These were men who would draw steel for an impingement on their honor. They believed fully in what they did was right and that the creation of this new country was right, just and worthy of preservation. They belived that the document they created was worth going on forever. Or for as long as we had the honor and courage to hold it.

In that they may have erred. We no longer seem to be a people of reason, honor, or values. Only a people of the 'now'.

Where do you guys get this hero crap from? It's not in any way historical. It's not who they were and not what they said. Really, go read them before you say any other total nonsense.

There is no hero crap....However, this a deep respect for what they accomplished (significantly more than any one person alive today) I suggest you take of your fucking rose colored progressive glasses and take a look at what they actually said. I have to conclude that you are OCD at the least, but more than likely, a bit manic.....Or do you just worship Alinski?

 

[bedowin62]

libs think the Constitution means everything they want it to mean; when they want it to mean what they want; or nothing at all if that is what they want it to mean

idiots and hypocrites

 

[bripat9643]

During a speech in Atlanta Friday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Friday defended interpreting the Constitution as it was originally written and intended.
\
"The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."​

It's sad the Founding Fathers and half of his fellow SCOTUS disagree with him.

Hmmm . . . . wrong, the founders do not disagree. Only the commie stooges on the Court disagree.

 

[bripat9643]

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

What do you think that proves? The Founders believed they had disposed off the "barbarous regime." However, with hindsight we can see that the regime wasn't one quarter as barbarous as living under the unlimited democracy we all currently suffer under.

 

[Darkwind]

Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

Scalia’s entitled to his opinion, as is every other American, and alone his opinion carries no more authority or weight than any other American’s; and his opinion does not hold with the facts and evidence concerning the Constitution.

Justice Kennedy’s understanding of the Framers’ intent is the most accurate, as he expressed in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

The Framers correctly understood that it would be impossible to incorporate a finite ‘list’ of citizens’ protected rights, or have a comprehensive enumeration of government’s authority, where it is the principles enshrined in the Constitution which remain constant, allowing Americans to realize manifestations of individual liberty the Framers sought not to identify in total, and wisely so.

The Constitution is, therefore, neither ‘living’ nor ‘static,’ it is not a mere ‘blueprint’ of government, it is more than just “what it says and doesn't say…” It is a document of the law, the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence seeking to establish a relationship between government and those governed were citizens’ civil liberties are safeguarded.

But the Constitution is not solely a ‘straightjacket’ on government, it acknowledges the legitimate role of government in civil society, by affording Congress powers both enumerated and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)), where acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (US v. Lopez (1995)), and where the laws enacted by Congress and the rulings of Federal courts are supreme to the laws and measures of the states and local jurisdictions (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

The interpretive authority of the courts is beyond dispute, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, and as practiced by Colonial courts well over a century before the Foundation Era (Marbury v. Madison (1803)). Judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts is not an ‘invention’ of the Supreme Court, as the Court merely codified a long-standing legal doctrine where Americans of the Framing Period fully expected the courts to review acts of Congress and invalidate those acts repugnant to the Constitution.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court; the Founding Document’s very construct, history of its composition, and foundation on English common law dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II is indisputable evidence of that, to argue otherwise is to be ignorant of these facts, and seeks only to promote a partisan agenda, having nothing to do with the Constitution and its meaning.

The main thrust of and majority of that, I agree...I don't agree that the the Constituion is not a straight jacket of governement. It is in fact, just that.

But you are correct in the belief that it is simpler and a shorter list to detail what government can do, rather than list all the things it cannot. But that does not mean that the Constitution is not a restriction upon the power of government. The enumeration of powers is just that. It lists what government can do, and that is the end of it. There are no implied powers beyond what it can do.

That is why I get a kick out of people who speak to the 'Rights of Government'.

Government has no rights. It has only responsibilities carefully outlined and restricted.

 

[paperview]

And what do you think he was speaking too, when he made these remarks?

Jefferson and the voting Continental Congress did not abolish change to our Constitution. They made it impervious to whim or fads....

The Amendment process is what the progressives are always going on about and how they hate it. They want to change the Constitution by a mere majority vote in a Congress that they control, under a President they approve.

In fact, the Amendment process is designed to invoke deep debate, and take decades, if not generations. This is so that the whims and stupidity of the young and emotional do not override the overall architecture of the Constitution. Which is limited and restricted government, and the power residing in the peoples hands.

Nice backtrack. You thought Jefferson was referring to the King. It's right there. You think we can't read?

The 18th amendment was passed in some 13 months.

The 26th took just three months and ten days.

The average time for Amendment passage is 1 year, 8 months.

Also, a number of Amendments have a time limit (7 years)

Generations. lol.

There was one Amendment that was passed a few decades ago that took near the whole span of this country's history to be passed.

It was introduced in September 1789 -- and was ratified ....

in 1992.

Nice deflection. He WAS referring to the King....why do you think I'd run away from the truth? Are you unable to infer motivation and conviction from events in a persons life? Wow.

No he wasn't. Ferchissakes.

He was specifically talking about laws and the Constitution. Read the fucking letter:
Letter to Samuel Kercheval

So...1 year and 8 months....I'll take your word for it...though I'd like to see the source...This means that you can point to two...count them, two Amendments that happened rapidly...the 18th and the 26th...

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/97-922.pdf

But you missed the entire thrust of my post...the intent of the Founders was to put limits on how fast an amendment could be passed...obviously, not enough. Changes to the Constitution cannot be done based upon fads....I find it interesting that out of the 27 amendments, you found two that were done fast....

See above link. Don't miss the table.

 

[bripat9643]

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

Yes, Georges Coat of Tyranny....that would be the King for those of you who are slow...

Freedom however, is a garment that is always in style and fits to perfection.. -- Me.I really like that. I'm going to coin that one....

Er, Jefferson was talking about laws and the Constitution...

The full quote:

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.

As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -

None of that proves that Jefferson believe the Constitution was a "living document" that could be reinterpreted to mean whatever the stooges on the Supreme Court wanted it to mean.

 

[bripat9643]

Want more?

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.

They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.

I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country.

It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

You still haven't disproven Scalia's position.

 

[bripat9643]

The libturds are always saying that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Do you suppose they will accept what this Supreme Court justices has to say?

Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism' | Fox News

During a speech in Atlanta Friday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Friday defended interpreting the Constitution as it was originally written and intended.

Scalia delivered a speech titled "Interpreting the Constitution: A View From the High Court," as part of a constitutional symposium hosted by the State Bar of Georgia. Originalism and trying to figure out precisely what the ratified document means is the only option, otherwise you're just telling judges to govern, Scalia argued.

"The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."​

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself."
Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

By "modifications" he means amendments. He doesn't mean 5 Justices changing the definition of the words used.

 

[paperview]

And there's a whole pile of other quotes from Jefferson -- just oozing with Living Constitution quotes

here: Jefferson on Politics & Government: Amending the Constitution

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes, Georges Coat of Tyranny....that would be the King for those of you who are slow...

Freedom however, is a garment that is always in style and fits to perfection.. -- Me.I really like that. I'm going to coin that one....

Er, Jefferson was talking about laws and the Constitution...

The full quote:

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.

As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -

None of that proves that Jefferson believe the Constitution was a "living document" that could be reinterpreted to mean whatever the stooges on the Supreme Court wanted it to mean.

He actually thought that when the time came we'd just kill the thing and start over, like they did.