Scalia Dismisses 'Living Constitution'
And there was much rejoicing...
In a recent speech, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defended his long time Contitutional philosophy of originalism, meaning he believes in what the Constitution actually says, not what some would have it say. You can read the story here, I'll just post some quotes because this guy has articulated what I've been trying to say for years, making it obvious why he is a Surpreme Court Justice and I, am not.
On the notion of the Constitution being a living document:
"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, the Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."
He goes on to say that proponents of a "living Constitution" want matters to be decided "not by the people but by the justices of the Supreme Court."
Isn't that the truth...
"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,"
Isn't that exactly the case? Once the Supreme Court rules on an issue, the will of the people is no longer a consideration. This is why conservatives across the nation have been screaming about "activist judges." We as conservatives do not want judges making law from the bench. We want our elected officials to make the laws and the judges to enforce them. I'm fairly certain that's how the system was setup to begin with. Seems like I've read that somewhere... Oh yeah, in the Constitution!
Look people, there are things that just are not in the Constitution. Sorry ladies, but that includes the right to an abortion. That includes the right to gay marriage. That includes the right to a retirement plan, and it also includes the right to privacy. I've read it several times, none of those things are in there.
And the interesting thing of it is, The Constitution does provide a way to put things in there that the founding fathers left out. No, it's not by judicial decree. It's called the amendment process. If you want something in the Constitution that is not currently there, write an amendment and get it passed and ratified as the Constitution insists. Amazing how they thought of that isn't it?
Long live Justice Scalia! We need more like him.
In a recent speech, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defended his long time Contitutional philosophy of originalism, meaning he believes in what the Constitution actually says, not what some would have it say. You can read the story here, I'll just post some quotes because this guy has articulated what I've been trying to say for years, making it obvious why he is a Surpreme Court Justice and I, am not.
On the notion of the Constitution being a living document:
"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, the Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."
He goes on to say that proponents of a "living Constitution" want matters to be decided "not by the people but by the justices of the Supreme Court."
Isn't that the truth...
"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,"
Isn't that exactly the case? Once the Supreme Court rules on an issue, the will of the people is no longer a consideration. This is why conservatives across the nation have been screaming about "activist judges." We as conservatives do not want judges making law from the bench. We want our elected officials to make the laws and the judges to enforce them. I'm fairly certain that's how the system was setup to begin with. Seems like I've read that somewhere... Oh yeah, in the Constitution!
Look people, there are things that just are not in the Constitution. Sorry ladies, but that includes the right to an abortion. That includes the right to gay marriage. That includes the right to a retirement plan, and it also includes the right to privacy. I've read it several times, none of those things are in there.
And the interesting thing of it is, The Constitution does provide a way to put things in there that the founding fathers left out. No, it's not by judicial decree. It's called the amendment process. If you want something in the Constitution that is not currently there, write an amendment and get it passed and ratified as the Constitution insists. Amazing how they thought of that isn't it?
Long live Justice Scalia! We need more like him.
posted by Goose at 21:53
2 Comments:
Hello, is this thing working?
I missed this talk entirely. Thanks for bringing it up
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home