Quote :

"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." Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court." "They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060215/ap_on_go_su_co/scalia_constitution;_ylt=Alnp6cPZJ2xk8fId.RJRX12yFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Quote :

"So, Justice Scalia, I guess you're "an idiot" if you think the Constitution says: 1. Bush can spy on email and telephone conversations, since those things didn't exist when the framers wrote the Constitution. 2. Scalia must also think you're an idiot if you believe that the framers ever intended blacks to drink from the same drinking fountains as white (let's face it, I don't think they had drinking fountains in 1789, but perhaps I'm wrong), but we do know that the framers never intended the slaves to be free. Of course, people like Scalia probably DO have problems with Supreme Court decisions promoting desegregation (legislatures should decide civil rights, not courts, he'd say). Yet, Scalia likely has no problem reading into the Constitution Bush's new authority to spy on email and telephone conversations. Why? Because Scalia is an activist judge, and his cause is far-right Republican politics. There is no consistency among Republican leaders anymore. They believe in nothing but the supremacy of their whim at the moment."

http://feeds.feedburner.com/Americablog?m=7402

raising the level of discourse.

2/16/2006 3:30:10 PM

I'm sure the 3/5 of black people that gets counted is outraged.

2/16/2006 4:07:43 PM

scalia did not speak against amendments to the constitution. he spoke out against short-circuiting the amendment process.

2/16/2006 4:40:30 PM

Quote :

"but we do know that the framers never intended the slaves to be free."

False. Thats why the constitution never once mentions the legality of slavery.

2/16/2006 4:41:52 PM

Water fountains aren't mentioned in any amendments.

2/16/2006 4:45:35 PM

Quote :

"Bush can spy on email and telephone conversations, since those things didn't exist when the framers wrote the Constitution."

If the constitution doesn't address it, then it falls to the democratic elements of our government to decide the outcome. For example, we have a right against unreasonable search and siezure, but privacy related to information that was not obtained through a search and was largely voluntary? Perhaps not. Luckily, we have a legislature that can defend our privacy, all it takes is a majority. Would we prefer to have a "right to privacy"? Then with 2/3rds, we can amend the constitution and give us all new rights!

Quote :

"legislatures should decide civil rights, not courts, he'd say"

So let me get this straight: the speaker would prefer civil rights be determined by nine unelected despots appointed for life instead of a legislature.

I knew democracy had become unpopular among some, but most of these anti-democracy individuals usually want to replace it with something other than totalitarian despotism.



[Edited on February 16, 2006 at 4:56 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/16/2006 4:51:25 PM

Quote :

"False. Thats why the constitution never once mentions the legality of slavery."

Well, like I kind of just said, it has a provision for "free persons" and "other persons".

2/16/2006 4:56:06 PM

^ Word. But it never once outlines the rights of whites to own black slaves. One could argue that the framers wanted to end slavery down the road, as it was impractical for the new nation to give up its work force. The constitution did of course end the slave trade in 1808 (date?), which was a step in that direction.

Slavery is actually never mentioned by name in the constitution.

2/16/2006 5:00:05 PM

I'm with you on that. And I do think (or maybe just hope) that while some of the framers were against slavery, it was basically not feasible to do it and keep together the nation.

2/16/2006 5:03:28 PM

Yay tyranny of the majority!

Boooooo checks, balances, and guaranteed civil liberties!

2/16/2006 5:07:30 PM

well you could argue that the way the SCOTUS has been operating for the past 50 years has been a tyranny of the nine with no meaningful checks or balances

[Edited on February 16, 2006 at 6:07 PM. Reason : s]

2/16/2006 5:50:53 PM

yep

no congressional involvement in the makeup of the SCOTUS whatsoever

and they've been powerless, excuse me POWERLESS to stop the mighty nine

2/16/2006 6:13:26 PM

man, logical fallacy central!

Quote :

"Bush can spy on email and telephone conversations, since those things didn't exist when the framers wrote the Constitution."

if it didn't exist, then how can the Constitution talk about it? Then again, Scalia wasn't talking about the wiretapping scenario either, so its irrelevant to the "discussion"...

Quote :

"Scalia must also think you're an idiot if you believe that the framers ever intended blacks to drink from the same drinking fountains as white (let's face it, I don't think they had drinking fountains in 1789, but perhaps I'm wrong), but we do know that the framers never intended the slaves to be free."

Again, whats the relevance? were we talking about civil rights? furthermore, "we" don't "know" that the framers ever "intended the slaves [not] to be free." In fact, most research suggests that the framers were split on the question of slavery....

2/16/2006 7:40:09 PM

Quote :

"you could argue"

kind of like how you could also argue (as boonedocks has so eloquently done) that disavowing the "living constitution" ideology would lead to, "tyranny of the majority! Boooooo checks, balances, and guaranteed civil liberties!"

2/16/2006 7:46:40 PM

Quote :

"If the constitution doesn't address it, then it falls to the democratic elements of our government to decide the outcome. "

^ As I stated, on certain subjects the American people are, by design, subject to the full potential tyranny of the majority. For example, an Amendment to the constitution clearly states that the legislature has the right to levy taxes upon wages and salaries as it likes. The constitution does NOT grant the right to engage in policing of the American people (sorry FBI) thanks to the bill of rights, which reserves such rights exclusively to the states.

Now, what type of government is it when we have a constitution that restricts the government to enumerated powers yet the government goes on and does whatever the three branches agree it should do, regardless of what the constitution says.

2/16/2006 8:06:10 PM

One that works pretty well, and makes sense to non-Constitutionalists.

2/16/2006 8:33:31 PM

i think, quite honestly, that the thing that got to me the most was a supreme court justice calling everyone who believes in a "living document" an idiot.

realize that the comments about the spying and what not are atrios' words, not mine. you all make good points in response to them. well, most of you.

2/16/2006 9:10:20 PM

don't you understand, George Washington had a more exstensive electronic spying program than the current administration.

2/16/2006 9:14:07 PM

HAHAHAH i love that

2/16/2006 9:20:22 PM

^^ That deserves a LoLercaust if I ever saw one.

2/16/2006 9:25:07 PM

Wait, Scalia and Bush are two separate people, right?

2/16/2006 9:54:12 PM

Quote :

"and they've been powerless, excuse me POWERLESS to stop the mighty nine"

We can thank Madison v Marbury for that sad state of affairs.

2/17/2006 12:38:14 AM

Libertarians

ahahahahahaaahaha

2/17/2006 12:38:59 AM

it is, by my account, a perfect document


our interpretations are what is flawed.

2/17/2006 12:47:16 AM

^But what about the people that wrote it? Were their interpretations of what they were writing perfect?

2/17/2006 7:46:59 AM

^^ That's dumb.

It was made by humans

2/17/2006 8:15:55 AM

no kidding, how can something written by humans be perfect? well, besides the bible, i mean

2/17/2006 8:39:36 AM

What AxlBonBach said about his interpretation being flawed is absolutely correct.

2/17/2006 10:15:07 AM

Its a god damn document that can be changed by Congress but won't be because its much easier to appoint a politcally leaning Supreme court then convince the american people to adopt an amendment.

2/17/2006 10:47:46 AM

so you believe that a group of white, old, slave owning, rich men were able to create a completely, 100% perfect document?

2/17/2006 10:48:16 AM

Those who advocate the Constitution as living/breathing/evolving really do bother me. Who is to say what is currently "living and breathing" and who is to say what isn't? It leaves too much to interpretation.

AxlBonBach has it right, the Consitution advocates what is as close to a perfect form of govenment that we will ever have. If there is a serious issue that needs to be addressed or radified, it can be done through the constitutional process.

2/17/2006 10:56:28 AM

the constitution IS an interpretive document

that's why we have the supreme court

they interpret what that document really says

societies change, civilizations change, interpretations WILL CHANGE

2/17/2006 11:00:30 AM

Quote :

"so you believe that a group of white, old, slave owning, rich men were able to create a completely, 100% perfect document?"

How many of the original signers had slaves?

A bunch of white, old, rich men were able to free the slaves, give minorities equal rights, and women the right to vote (all of which they radified through the constitutional process). So what's your point?

2/17/2006 11:05:06 AM

Quote :

"so you believe that a group of white, old, slave owning, rich men were able to create a completely, 100% perfect document?"

So you believe that just because the document is imperfect it should have no impact upon the rulings of the SCOTUS?

2/17/2006 1:15:28 PM

No, I believe that just because the document is imperfect it should be seen as imperfect and therefore open to interpretation. Just like holy books, which are also imperfect.

2/17/2006 1:21:47 PM

Quote :

"it should be seen as imperfect and therefore open to interpretation"

And, of course, it is up to the nine justices how it is "interpreted"
If an amendment was passed tomorrow, I guess its interpretation would also be up to interpretation.

Amendment: "All regulations and restrictions upon abortion and related activities shall be administered by the respective states."
[six years pass, the democrats are thrown out of congress, and thanks to holding a majority on the SCOTUS and a mere-majority in congress the republicans pass a law calling abortion a civil rights violation.]
SCOTUS Ruling: "The act of aborting a fetus constitutes a violation of the civil rights of the child and is therefore prohibited by federal law."

Crap, SCOTUS, what about the Amendment we just passed six years ago!?!?
Answer: I interpreted it, foreign law or something, go away.

2/17/2006 1:31:29 PM

That's a horrible analogy.

but it suits your argument well.

[Edited on February 17, 2006 at 1:47 PM. Reason : .]

2/17/2006 1:46:56 PM