Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

That's our process and it works pretty well. You like it just fine, when they rule your way that is.

 

[paperview]

Hey toddler boy: Define "cruel and unusual punishment."

Put on your best interpreter thinking cap.

 

[thereisnospoon]

However, it's interpretation is

You lefties think the US Constitution is there for your personal enjoyment. To be used, twisted or ignored for the sole purpose of personal or political gain.
No reaction is more knee jerk than when you people read "the US Constitution is a limiting document"....

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Look lady. If you are not going to read what I say, then don't bother to reply to Me.

Jefferson and all of the founding fathers based their perceptions of freedom and liberty from the conflict they had with England. From the time when George was trying to pay for the war with France by his imposition of unreasonable taxation on the colonies, right up to the point where he drafted the Constitution of the United States, his perceptions were determined by what he had been through.

Just as yours, mine, and everyone else's is.

His letters and articles all speak to a deep revelation of freecom and liberty that had not been conceived at that time. But to disregard everything that he and the rest of the Founders had been through is absolute craziness.

The Amendment process of the Constitution is deliberately set up to be slow, and deliberate. Granted, it was crafted in a time when the news of new actions and laws took weeks or months to reach the other states, but back in those days, our legislatures actually debated subjects, and didn't just tow the party line like they do today.

Amendments are meant to be slow, and foster a deep debate among the entire country...its why I opposed the DOM amendment....Its just a fad and one that rightfully died in the process. As all such amendments should.

 

[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." -

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.

Well, I see you are nothing but a shill sent to shit stir...that is a bold face lie so I'll be ignoring you now.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Society evolves

Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed

The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society

That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on

Yeah yeah yeah....We've heard that one before.
Another example of how you people think the Constitution is there for your convenience.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Well, I see you are nothing but a shill sent to shit stir...that is a bold face lie so I'll be ignoring you now.

That's no lie little friend. If you knew Jefferson and how the Constitution came about you'd know that. He didn't consider himself a god, you shouldn't either.

 

[thereisnospoon]

then why can we ad to it as a nation?


remember the founders planned it that way?

hey moron.....The US Constitution has been amended 27 times..
Back under your retard rock.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Society evolves

Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed

The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society

That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on

Yeah yeah yeah....We've heard that one before.
Another example of how you people think the Constitution is there for your convenience.

Actually it stands in the way a lot, but that was by design.

 

[Darkwind]

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

Well, I see you are nothing but a shill sent to shit stir...that is a bold face lie so I'll be ignoring you now.

That's no lie little friend. If you knew Jefferson and how the Constitution came about you'd know that. He didn't consider himself a god, you shouldn't either.

In fact, I know him better than you can possibly know, and it seems, far better than you will ever know. I don't limit Myself to a self-imposed outside ideology.

I tend to think for Myself. You should try it sometime.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well, I see you are nothing but a shill sent to shit stir...that is a bold face lie so I'll be ignoring you now.

That's no lie little friend. If you knew Jefferson and how the Constitution came about you'd know that. He didn't consider himself a god, you shouldn't either.

In fact, I know him better than you can possibly know, and it seems, far better than you will ever know. I don't limit Myself to a self-imposed outside ideology.

I tend to think for Myself. You should try it sometime.

In your case it's not thinking for yourself, it's just plain making it up.

 

[paperview]

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


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.

....

Jefferson and all of the founding fathers based their perceptions of freedom and liberty from the conflict they had with England. From the time when George was trying to pay for the war with France by his imposition of unreasonable taxation on the colonies, right up to the point where he drafted the Constitution of the United States, his perceptions were determined by what he had been through.

Jefferson drafted the Constitution now?

Jefferson was in France when the constitution was written -- he never even signed it. (though he most certainly had input through his letters halfway around the world.)

The Amendment process of the Constitution is deliberately set up to be slow, and deliberate. Granted, it was crafted in a time when the news of new actions and laws took weeks or months to reach the other states, but back in those days, our legislatures actually debated subjects, and didn't just tow the party line like they do today.

You said decades, and generations for Amendments to pass.

Did you bother to read the link I provided?

If you're going to ask for them, and then not read them -- then why should I bother?

 

[dblack]

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?

"Living document" advocates admit they are changing the meaning. They believe that's necessary to address our changing needs. But that's what the amendment process is for, and they're trying to do an end run around it because they can't be bothered to build the consensus required to make their desired changes legitimately.

 

[paperview]

That's no lie little friend. If you knew Jefferson and how the Constitution came about you'd know that. He didn't consider himself a god, you shouldn't either.

In fact, I know him better than you can possibly know, and it seems, far better than you will ever know. I don't limit Myself to a self-imposed outside ideology.

I tend to think for Myself. You should try it sometime.

In your case it's not thinking for yourself, it's just plain making it up.

"The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.--I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society.

....

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law.

The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government.

The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being.

This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only..."

Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

 

[paperview]

In fact, the Amendment process is designed to invoke deep debate, and take decades, if not generations.
....

Look - generations!

Time Required to Ratify Constitutional Amendments. The last number is the total number of days -- from proposal -- to ratification.

Lists the dates of proposal and ratification, and the number of days each successful amendment was pending before the states before ratification.

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

Now it's not to say the Amendment process isn't an easy one -- of course.

And we all know there have only been 17 passed since the Bill of Rights was ratified, and over 10,000 proposals that never went anywhere - but the line about it taking decades or generations for one to pass is just silly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Of course not.

Apparently Scalia doesn’t consider women to be persons.

Scalia is no different than any other rightwing partisan ideologue, hostile to 14th Amendment jurisprudence only because it benefits disadvantaged classes of persons conservatives disapprove of for purely subjective reasons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In fact, the Amendment process is designed to invoke deep debate, and take decades, if not generations.
....

Look - generations!

Time Required to Ratify Constitutional Amendments. The last number is the total number of days -- from proposal -- to ratification.

Lists the dates of proposal and ratification, and the number of days each successful amendment was pending before the states before ratification.

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

Now it's not to say the Amendment process isn't an easy one -- of course.

And we all know there have only been 17 passed since the Bill of Rights was ratified, and over 10,000 proposals that never went anywhere - but the line about it taking decades or generations for one to pass is just silly.

What’s just as silly is to bring the ‘amendment process’ into a discussion of the interpretive authority of the courts at all, where it has no bearing whatsoever on the issue.

Interpreting the Constitution doesn’t ‘change’ it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Hundreds of years of court decisions on the interpretation of the Constitution s a living organism

Scalia, if anyone, should understand his job

Define "living organism"...
I have the suspicion you have a far left interpretation of that term.
More or less on the level of "you'll receive the rights we deem fit for you to have".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Society evolves

Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed

The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society

That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on

Yeah yeah yeah....We've heard that one before.
Another example of how you people think the Constitution is there for your convenience.

Dear, the Constitution is there for all of us.

Our world 227 years later is so much different culturally, socially, politically, technologically, and the interps of the Constitution have to consider those realities.

What Madison personally thought back then really does not matter
now. I believe JM would have wanted us to have a great life for the greatest number of citizens possibly, not just the dinosaurs looking backward.

The millenials certainly do not agree with you, and that is where America will go.

 

[Contumacious]

What Madison personally thought back then really does not matter
now. .

No, it doesn't.

What's trendy now? Karl Marx, Food stamps, government supremacy.

.