Scalia Calls Foes "Idiots"

[Proteas]

----------------

Scalia Calls Philosophical Foes 'Idiots'
Conservative Justice Dismisses Proponents of 'Living Constitution'
By JONATHAN EWING, AP

PONCE, Puerto Rico (Feb. 14) - 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."

Read on

----------------

Personally? I think he's got a point. You do not a write 2+2=4 on a piece of paper, and 200 years later reinterpret 2+2 as being equal to 5. That's not what it meant, and you'd be incorrect to think it does.

What you do you think?

[MortifiedPenguins]

The Constitution has to change with the times.

We have had numerous changes to it and if we stuck with the original, there would still be slaves, women don't vote, voting age is 21 and we don't directly elect senators.

The constitution is supposed to be flexible to the times of the country.

But it's supposed to be flexible to a point.
There will always be some truths that won't be broken.

Like our system of Checks and balances, and the two party congress.

[Memorize]

I like that guy.

[RedSkunk]

I don't think the constitution lays out math rules. It lays out the basics for our society. Which is constantly changing.

And he's not going to make any friends with that sort of argument. He should be a NG member, not a Justice.

[Ravariel]

At 2/15/06 12:08 PM, Proteas wrote: Personally? I think he's got a point. You do not a write 2+2=4 on a piece of paper, and 200 years later reinterpret 2+2 as being equal to 5. That's not what it meant, and you'd be incorrect to think it does.

What you do you think?

To use your own analogy, I think it's more along the lines of this:

While 200 years ago 2+2=4, nowadays we have 2+2+1 = 4, which obviously isn't right. The constitution is OBVIOUSLY a living, organic thing that was meant by the founders to be changed. Otherwise they wouldn't have allowed, even ENCOURAGED, it to be amended. It is this fact alone that made our system so revolutionary and has allowed us to sustain for so many years of drastic social change (18th amendment anyone?).

[Proteas]

At 2/15/06 02:37 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote: We have had numerous changes to it and if we stuck with the original, there would still be slaves, women don't vote, voting age is 21 and we don't directly elect senators.

Amendments I can understand. But it's interpreting one line in the constitution to include things that no one in their right mind would consider it applying to.

Example; the first Amendment. It guarentees freedom of speech, which is defined as "The faculty or act of speaking. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words," so on and so forth. It refers to the act of vocalizing your thoughts through speech. How then can one define the act of flag burning as "speech?" It's an act, not a vocalization.

In the 1970's, Texas' abortion laws were overturned in Roe versus Wade because the higher courts decided abortion was constitutional under the right to privacy clause of the constitution. There is no such thing as a right to privacy claus in the U.S. Constitution!

Now do you see where I'm coming from?

[RedSkunk]

At 2/15/06 02:53 PM, Proteas wrote: Now do you see where I'm coming from?

Burning a flag is certainly a first amendment right. It's not the action that causes people to get their panties in a bunch – it's the fact that it's flag. It's all symbolism. It's def. first amendment material. But yes, I see where you're coming from. The constitution is upholding things you don't like, so now you're complaining about it being misused. *shrug*

[Memorize]

No, we're complaining because people are finding "loopholes".

I doubt those back in the day considered burning our own nation's flag as an act of free speech.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/15/06 03:50 PM, AccessCode wrote: I doubt those back in the day considered burning our own nation's flag as an act of free speech.

I doubt they considered the second amendment as reason to own an assault rifle.

Huh. How about that.

[HighlyIllogical]

While their muzzleloaders may have fired .68 caliber rounds, they were slow, innacurate and malleable. Now, we let average people own high velocity .50 caliber weapons that can pierce most armor.

The founders knew that the times would change, so they made the document's interperetation up to the courts.

[Memorize]

At 2/15/06 03:55 PM, redskvnk wrote:

I doubt they considered the second amendment as reason to own an assault rifle.

Huh. How about that.

Im more along the lines of that you can easily own a handgun, but not assault rifles. You can obtain one, but not as easy.

Right to bare arms seems pretty straight forward. But hey, at least we dont radically change it as in, "it's outdated". At least the republicans keep the basics of the constitution unlike the democrats who just try to rid it of certain areas.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 2/15/06 02:53 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/15/06 02:37 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote:

Now do you see where I'm coming from?

Yes i get you, i though you meant Ammendments and the like.

So then i will agree with you on that.

Abortion isn't a right just as the use to drink alchohol, smoke tobaco or pot.

These are acts that should have the ability to be allowed or illegalized.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/15/06 04:15 PM, AccessCode wrote: At least the republicans keep the basics of the constitution unlike the democrats who just try to rid it of certain areas.

Uh huh, k. That's nice sonny.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 2/15/06 04:15 PM, AccessCode wrote:

Right to bare arms seems pretty straight forward.

Yes, the right to show your arms in public IS straightforward. But seriously-the right to BEAR arms is NOT straightforward. It refers to MILITIAS (THE NATIONAL GUARD) HAVING GUNS, NOT JOE SCHMOE.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/15/06 02:53 PM, Proteas wrote: Now do you see where I'm coming from?

Proteas, Scalia voted in favor of flag-burning, and as the Constituiton is currently written, I would probably concur with him. There's a lot better examples of judicial activism. Kelo, for example, which doesn't make any sense no matter how you interpret the Constitution.

[Memorize]

At 2/15/06 08:15 PM, mackid wrote:

But seriously-the right to BEAR arms is NOT straightforward. It refers to MILITIAS

Prove it.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/15/06 08:40 PM, AccessCode wrote:

At 2/15/06 08:15 PM, mackid wrote:

But seriously-the right to BEAR arms is NOT straightforward. It refers to MILITIAS

Prove it.

Read the constitution.

[Memorize]

At 2/15/06 09:26 PM, redskvnk wrote:

Read the constitution.

I have.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/15/06 09:28 PM, AccessCode wrote:

At 2/15/06 09:26 PM, redskvnk wrote:

Read the constitution.

I have.

Then stop trying to twist the meaning of it around. READ IT LIKE IT'S WRITTEN.

WAAAAH!!! YOUR NOT READING IT VERBITAUM! ITS NAWT A LIVING DOCUMENT. DOO-DOO HEAD!

[Montgomery-Scott]

At 2/15/06 02:53 PM, Proteas wrote:

Example; the first Amendment. It guarentees freedom of speech, which is defined as "The faculty or act of speaking. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words," so on and so forth. It refers to the act of vocalizing your thoughts through speech. How then can one define the act of flag burning as "speech?" It's an act, not a vocalization.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It is pretty much an accepted fact among constitutional scholars that the first amendment applies to all expression, and not just the forms explicetly enumerated in the amendment.

In the 1970's, Texas' abortion laws were overturned in Roe versus Wade because the higher courts decided abortion was constitutional under the right to privacy clause of the constitution. There is no such thing as a right to privacy claus in the U.S. Constitution!

The right to privacy is often called a 'penumbral right,' in other words, a right that is implied by explicetly enumerated cluses in the constitution, namely, the first and fourth amendments.

And AcessCode:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It talks about well regulated militias -- this was really a states rights clause that was talking about how the state governments, as well as teh federal government, would be allowed to have armed forces, and since people would have to provide their own weapons in those days, this amendment was to keep congress from infringing on the states' rights to have a militia, this wasn't meant as a personal liberty at all.

And about Scalia, he shoudl be censured. Calling your opponents idiots is ok if you are like Bill O' Riley or Al Franken. Not if you are a Justice of the supreme court. He brings disgrace to the seat that he holds.

[WolvenBear]

The Constitution is a fixed document, not a living, breathing one. It can be amended to, but the process is difficult. The founding fathers believed in a very limited government, with all the powers off-setting each other. Think of the Constitution as a block of stone, it can be defined more clearly, but it takes time and effort. The "living breathing document" argument was invented to give judges almost unlimited power to legislate from the bench without going through that nasty amendment process, and proponents of it believe that the judges can and should be allowed to do whatever they want regardless of the will of the Constitution.

For the Second Amendment, if you read the works of the FF, they clearly meant for individuals to own guns. They distrusted government in all it's forms. Their guns may have been much slower than our automatic weapons today, but for the time they were fast and easy to use. We'd easily get bored, but at the time they were quite nice. 2 shots a minute if you were good. And as for assault rifles, the FF probably didn't intend for us to have those, you've got a point, and that's why it is almost impossible to get them, black markets always open tho.

[Memorize]

At 2/15/06 09:30 PM, redskvnk wrote:

Then stop trying to twist the meaning of it around. READ IT LIKE IT'S WRITTEN.

A well regulated malitia, being neccessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed.

[Memorize]

At 2/15/06 09:43 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And here's where interpretation comes in. You say that because it start with "A well regulated militia" you claim it's talking about that having the right to bear arms. However, I interpret it as we need a well regulated militia to protect the people's right to bear arms.

I say that if they didnt want the people to have the right to bear arms, that they would've instead have the used the word Militia instead of people.

[Montgomery-Scott]

At 2/15/06 09:45 PM, AccessCode wrote:

At 2/15/06 09:30 PM, redskvnk wrote:

Then stop trying to twist the meaning of it around. READ IT LIKE IT'S WRITTEN.

A well regulated malitia, being neccessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed.

1. Buy a US history textbook.
2. Turn to the section about the drafting of the constitution
3. Read about how the Anti-Federalists opposed the constitution because it weakened states' rights in favor of a strong national government.
4. Read how the Bill of Rights corrected these states' rights issues, in part by allowing the states to have militias with the second amendment.
5. Realize that mr. amendment number two reffers to the rights of states, not individuals.

[Elfer]

At 2/15/06 09:43 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote: And AcessCode:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It talks about well regulated militias -- this was really a states rights clause that was talking about how the state governments, as well as teh federal government, would be allowed to have armed forces, and since people would have to provide their own weapons in those days, this amendment was to keep congress from infringing on the states' rights to have a militia, this wasn't meant as a personal liberty at all.

I'm sorry, I'm all for getting rid of guns and everything, but I thin you may be misinterpreting it. I think that the second amendment reads a lot better if you take out the first and last commas. They seem superfluous to me.

I interpret it as "Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Basically, the well regulated militia bit is a justification, not a requirement.

I don't like it, but that's what it says.

[Memorize]

At 2/15/06 09:49 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote:

1. Buy a US history textbook.

How 'bout you re-read.

5. Realize that mr. amendment number two reffers to the rights of states, not individuals.

yet it clearly says people.

See, I like things simple.

[Montgomery-Scott]

At 2/15/06 09:51 PM, AccessCode wrote:

At 2/15/06 09:49 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote:

1. Buy a US history textbook.

How 'bout you re-read.

5. Realize that mr. amendment number two reffers to the rights of states, not individuals.

yet it clearly says people.

See, I like things simple.

haha, simplicity, how lovely. But in all seriousness, AcessCode and Elfer, you need to look beyond the simple language of the amendment and examine the context in which it was added to the constitution. It was people who were saying 'The federal government is stealing our states' rights' who got this amendment added to the constitution, not people who were saying 'the federal government is stealing our guns.'

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/15/06 09:43 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote: It is pretty much an accepted fact among constitutional scholars that the first amendment applies to all expression, and not just the forms explicetly enumerated in the amendment.

False. Child porn is not a Constitutionally-protected expression. Neither is obscenity.

The right to privacy is often called a 'penumbral right,' in other words, a right that is implied by explicetly enumerated cluses in the constitution, namely, the first and fourth amendments.

Privacy to kill babies? It's fake. It's nonsense. Sovereignty explicitly belongs to the states or the people on this issue.

And AcessCode:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It talks about well regulated militias -- this was really a states rights clause that was talking about how the state governments, as well as teh federal government, would be allowed to have armed forces, and since people would have to provide their own weapons in those days, this amendment was to keep congress from infringing on the states' rights to have a militia, this wasn't meant as a personal liberty at all.

Then how come it says, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? It refers both to the state's right to a militia and the individual's right to arms. I agree with you in the sense that the states have sovereignty on the issue of gun control, but the federal government should quit its overzealous quest to ban weapons and leave it to the states.

And about Scalia, he shoudl be censured. Calling your opponents idiots is ok if you are like Bill O' Riley or Al Franken. Not if you are a Justice of the supreme court. He brings disgrace to the seat that he holds.

Sort of agree with you, but what he said is nothing compared to the average over-the-top rhetoric of the Democrat in Washington. I don't think he should be censured.

[Montgomery-Scott]

At 2/15/06 09:55 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 2/15/06 09:43 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote: It is pretty much an accepted fact among constitutional scholars that the first amendment applies to all expression, and not just the forms explicetly enumerated in the amendment.

False. Child porn is not a Constitutionally-protected expression. Neither is obscenity.

My fault. Let me reiterate. That is just becuase of the changing nature of the constitution. Depending on who is in the Supreme Court and who is in the Justice Department, the line of what is protected by the first amendment and what is not is an ever shifting boundry. There are no hard and fast exceptions to free speach, only what the people who are currently interpreting the constitution think.

The right to privacy is often called a 'penumbral right,' in other words, a right that is implied by explicetly enumerated cluses in the constitution, namely, the first and fourth amendments.

Privacy to kill babies? It's fake. It's nonsense. Sovereignty explicitly belongs to the states or the people on this issue.

a. abortion isn't killing babies. b. Even if you were talking about eating infants, it is a constitutional precident that the it is not within the government's power to intrude on people's lawful activities. If i'm killing young children, the police can go get a search warrent, thank you very much. It is very much a federal issue, people have the right to privacy.

And AcessCode:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It talks about well regulated militias -- this was really a states rights clause that was talking about how the state governments, as well as teh federal government, would be allowed to have armed forces, and since people would have to provide their own weapons in those days, this amendment was to keep congress from infringing on the states' rights to have a militia, this wasn't meant as a personal liberty at all.

Then how come it says, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? It refers both to the state's right to a militia and the individual's right to arms. I agree with you in the sense that the states have sovereignty on the issue of gun control, but the federal government should quit its overzealous quest to ban weapons and leave it to the states.

I mean, there is no black and white on this, and we're getting into a dead-end constitutional semantics debate here. You say that the amendment was a dual pronged measure to both give the people of the United States the right to bear arms and the states to have militias. I say that the 'right of the people' part of the amendment was just a means to the end of protecting states' rights, and the rights of individuals to keep arms is not centeral to the amendment. Men have spent lifetimes arguing about this signe issue. Why don't we just drop it right here.

And about Scalia, he shoudl be censured. Calling your opponents idiots is ok if you are like Bill O' Riley or Al Franken. Not if you are a Justice of the supreme court. He brings disgrace to the seat that he holds.

Sort of agree with you, but what he said is nothing compared to the average over-the-top rhetoric of the Democrat in Washington. I don't think he should be censured.

True, but imo, the overall demeanor of politicians on both sides of the aisle has gone downhill. I can name both Democrats and Republicans who make cruel mockery of the decorum of their offices.

[WolvenBear]

At 2/15/06 09:53 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote:

haha, simplicity, how lovely. But in all seriousness, AcessCode and Elfer, you need to look beyond the simple language of the amendment and examine the context in which it was added to the constitution. It was people who were saying 'The federal government is stealing our states' rights' who got this amendment added to the constitution, not people who were saying 'the federal government is stealing our guns.'

The founding Fathers realized that the states would not ratify the constitution as it stood. Therefore they drafted 10 Amendments limiting the government's power. These were drafted before it was ever presented to the states. It clearly states that it is the right of the people to keep arms. Read the Federalist papers, as their intents were quite clear. The language was simple to appeal to the people. Amendments 1-8 are guarantees to the of certain rights they would have. 9 and 10 limited government in general. There was no complaint...the goverment is stealing states rights! But they knew it would happen, as they knew people would complain if gov't encroached into INDIVIDUAL rights too much. Couldn't be clearer.