Justice Scalia: The constitution is 'dead, dead, dead'

[itshappening]

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia emphatically rebutted the notion that the Constitution is a living document in a lecture at Southern Methodist University on Monday.

“It’s not a living document,” Scalia said, according to a report in the Dallas Morning News. “It’s dead, dead, dead.”

Scalia also told the crowd that sometimes the decisions he arrives at are not in concert with his political convictions.

“The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge,” he said.

Scalia shared the stage with SMU law Professor Brian Garner. The two recently published their second book together, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Text.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-constitution-is-dead-dead-dead#ixzz2JNYLFhKI

 

[presence]

Scalia is arguing for:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_intent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_meaning


vs.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_tree_doctrine




Strict originalism is giving us our constitution back. Specifically our gun rights, see heller v District of Columbia and McDonald v Chicago

The constitution IS dead.

living tree doctrine is a doctrine of constitutional interpretation that says that a constitution is organic and must be read in a broad and progressive manner so as to adapt it to the changing times.

Which is the bullshit
that is turning our police into paramilitary
while bankrupting, criminalizing, and disarming our people.

Time and all the gadgets of our present are an illusion, what the constitution meant in 1787 is what it means still means now.



Try to pick a founding father quote to support the drug war, the war on terror, the war global policing of the world, fiat currency, etc. That's where loose "organic" progressive interpretation gets us.

The principle of original intent
which underpins the Constitution
is under serious attack.

Ron Paul, The Congressional Record (House)
August 1, 1997

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Really?

-t

 

[jcannon98188]

Yeah I was confused as to whether this is good or bad. If he means it is dead, meaning not changing then fantastic! That sounds like what he meant, especially when he said sometimes he comes to his conclusiosn because it is constitutional, but does not line up with his political beliefs. But if Scalia meant dead as in, we need to move on, then that is bad. I am leaning towards the good explanation atm though,.

 

[TonySutton]

He means you don't twist the meaning of words to pretend it means something different today than it did 200 years ago. There is a process for changing the constitution. That process does not include changing how we interpret the document. The process is through amendments.

 

[presence]

Yeah I was confused as to whether this is good or bad. If he means it is dead, meaning not changing then fantastic!

It is a bit confusing as we like to think of our constitution as "alive and well". Scalia is the modern day champion of the "Ron Paul / liberty" position of "original intent" which is the opposite of "living constitution". The terminology always seems to sound prettier on the dark side; kind of like the patriot act.
​

The Hill article didn't make any of this clear at all.

The “originalist” perspective says the words of the Constitution should be given the same meaning they originally had in the minds of the Framers. A competing view, often advocated by contemporary liberals, is that the Constitutio is a “living document” and that judge can change its meaning to fit modern mores and sentiments. The Constitution itself expressly provides an amendment process for people who want to change it. Scalia was promoting his new book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, co-authored by Bryan Garner.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...imistic/question-3302925/?link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s

 

[KingRobbStark]

Isn't he old enough to be dead?

 

[supermario21]

Isn't he old enough to be dead?

He's up there, we need him to stay alive until Rand is president at the earliest.

 

[jackers]

Duplicate post...

 

[jackers]

Scalia is arguing for:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_intent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_meaning


vs.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_tree_doctrine




Strict originalism is giving us our constitution back. Specifically our gun rights, see heller v District of Columbia and McDonald v Chicago

The constitution IS dead.







Which is the bullshit
that is turning our police into paramilitary
while bankrupting, criminalizing, and disarming our people.

Time and all the gadgets of our present are an illusion, what the constitution meant in 1787 is what it means still means now.



Try to pick a founding father quote to support the drug war, the war on terror, the war global policing of the world, fiat currency, etc. That's where loose "organic" progressive interpretation gets us.

I don't understand this. If you look at the Constitution, as originally written and before the Incorporation Doctrine, then we wouldn't have these "One-Size-Fits-All" federal laws. Sure, places like NJ would be free to restrict gun ownership (as long as they follow their State constitution) but at least everyone wouldn't have to follow the singular Federal law.

Remember folks, the Bill of Rights didn't have any power over the states till after the 1890's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Remember folks, the Bill of Rights didn't have any power over the states till after the 1890's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

I'll take it. The closer these clowns are to you, the more they need to worry about people showing up in their office and expressing discontent.

From your link...

most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Interesting idea... change the constitution by the built in amendment process instead of just making shit up or pretending words mean different things than they did before. Many states have constitutions that are similar to the the BOR at their inception.

 

[loveableteddybear]

He's up there, we need him to stay alive until Rand is president at the earliest.

That or we can look forward to the first female, asian, homosexual supreme court justice.

 

[TonySutton]

I don't understand this. If you look at the Constitution, as originally written and before the Incorporation Doctrine, then we wouldn't have these "One-Size-Fits-All" federal laws. Sure, places like NJ would be free to restrict gun ownership (as long as they follow their State constitution) but at least everyone wouldn't have to follow the singular Federal law.

Remember folks, the Bill of Rights didn't have any power over the states till after the 1890's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Last time I checked I think 39 states had specific gun rights protection in their constitution.

 

[RabbitMan]

That or we can look forward to the first female, asian, homosexual supreme court justice.

What's wrong with that?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

If the u.s. constitution is dead,Scalia should get out of the supreme court of the united states and never return to a government job ever again.

 

[loveableteddybear]

What's wrong with that?

The fact that people care what the justice looks like instead of what they believe and how they ruled in the past. I'm tired of all this "first ever" crap.

When are we going to have our first REAL black President that grew up in the ghetto, has two black parents, and has fruit punch in his fridge?

 

[presence]

If the u.s. constitution is dead,Scalia should get out of the supreme court of the united states and never return to a government job ever again.

facepalm

 

[jackers]

Strict originalism is giving us our constitution back. Specifically our gun rights, see heller v District of Columbia and McDonald v Chicago

The constitution IS dead.

This is the part I don't understand. If you are going by the strict, original Constitution, then the Bill of Rights would only limit federal laws. So a federal ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional, but heller v DC, and McDonald v Chicago would have been upheld. Since the BOR didn't bind the States, only the federal government, then more states like New Jersey and New York would be free to enact any gun law they wished, as long as it didn't over-step their state constitutions.

So how is strict originalism giving our gun rights back? Like I said earlier, we wouldn't have blanket federal laws, but you can bet more states would put in place bans or at least stricter gun control measures.

 

[presence]

This is the part I don't understand. If you are going by the strict, original Constitution, then the Bill of Rights would only limit federal laws. So a federal ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional, but heller v DC, and McDonald v Chicago would have been upheld. Since the BOR didn't bind the States, only the federal government, then more states like New Jersey and New York would be free to enact any gun law they wished, as long as it didn't over-step their state constitutions.

So how is strict originalism giving our gun rights back? Like I said earlier, we wouldn't have blanket federal laws, but you can bet more states would put in place bans or at least stricter gun control measures.

Originalism accepts the amendment process of the constitution as it is codified in the original text; not reinterpretation of existing articles in modern context. Through the amendment process we are given our 14th:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[rprprs]

Scalia also told the crowd that sometimes the decisions he arrives at are not in concert with his political convictions.

Semantics aside, why would this ever occur?
I suppose the above statement hangs on the word "political". Yet, am I wrong to assume that most on these boards have a primary "political conviction" that the Constitution be upheld? I am hard pressed to imagine a scenario when the decision of a Supreme Court Justice should NOT be inline with that same conviction.