Scalia Dismisses 'Living Constitution'

[cal04]

People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says. In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution "as it was originally written and intended."

"Scalia does have a philosophy, it's called originalism," he said. "That's what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do," he told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory.

According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs. Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break." "But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060214/ap_on_go_su_co/scalia_constitution_2

[zbdent]

1. Soooo, when do Bush and Cheney have to follow the Constitution

explicitly?

We're waiting . . .

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Then I guess he'd have to admit there is nothing about the executive

branch having 'inherent' rights or a 'unitary executive' and that the original checks and balances should remain.

[kurth]

3. Then why all the amendments????

And the Constitution doesn't mention the Internets either...

[Sal Minella]

12. or Porsches or cardiac surgery or heavier-than-air flight or AIDS or many

other components of life as it is now......

[Felix Mala]

4. Does he recall anything in that moldy document about elections

and the hegemony of states to conduct them without the Supreme Court swooping in and relieving the state of its rights? Who could just sit there and take this BS seriously?

[Coastie for Truth]

5. I will stick with Justice Breyer and his concept of Active Liberty

see

[lvx35]

11. That's interesting.

"He argues, rather, that judges need to pay more attention to what he terms "active liberty." By this he means the people's ability to govern themselves and participate in the functioning of their political culture -- the democratic purposes that lie at the core of the Constitution. Judicial approaches that cling strictly to the Constitution's text, he contends, have "a tendency to undermine the Constitution's efforts to create a framework for democratic government -- a government that, while protecting basic individual liberties, permits citizens to govern themselves, and to govern themselves effectively."

So he's saying we need to pay special attention to the spirit of the constitution and not just the text. To be honest though I'll take Scalia's approach OR this one if somebody would apply it to Bush!!!

[redqueen]

6. So he wants to go back to when only white male landowners got to vote?

That guy is as evil as they come.

[mattclearing]

7. If that's true, then why did the founding fathers make it amendable?

Scalia is an idiot. He should go duck-hunting with Dead-eye Dick more often.

[joeybee12]

8. Hey, all you white, slave-holding landowners---here's your guy!

Thats' who the Constitution was apparently written for originally, so it makes sense that Scalia and the rest are screwing us over!

[rock]

9. Strange that I find myself agreeing

with what Scalia says.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. So pretty much every judicial scholar in US History is an idiot then?

Yeah, good one Scalia. :eyes:

Fucking jackass. :grr: