Justice Scalia on C-Span

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by justin To be fair, "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."

IMO, it's pretty hard to argue with his position. Clearly the purpose of the Constitution was and is to act as drag anchor, to keep certain things from happening or at least to slow them down.

Read the Federalist Papers- most framers feared that America would go the way of most societies and lose sight of principles which they thought were a necessity for a civil society.

The world is full of examples that show that this was not an idle fear.

Ha

[Martha]

To be fair. . .

Scalia has voted for expansive interpretation of the commerce clause. The commerce clause was never interpreted so broadly in the early years of our country.

Most recently, Scalia voted to uphold federal law prosecution of those involved in presribing or providing medical marijuana as allowed by state law, and he dissented in a case where the court upheld Oregon's assisted suicide law. Both of these cases were commerce clause cases where the federal government was trying to usurp state law.

I think all this stuff about "strict" construction and what the framers intended is a bunch of political B.S. The constitution says what it says. The major trouble is in applying the consitution to modern day situations.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha To be fair. . . Scalia has voted for expansive interpretation of the commerce clause.* The commerce clause was never interpreted so broadly in the early years of our country.

Martha, you are likely correct in this. I was only commenting on his referenced statement, not his actual behavior. Though I agree that behavior matters more than the BS that accompanies it.

Ha

[justin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Most recently, Scalia voted to uphold federal law prosecution of those involved in presribing or providing medical marijuana as allowed by state law, and he dissented in a case where the court upheld Oregon's assisted suicide law. Both of these cases were commerce clause cases where the federal government was trying to usurp state law.

Clearly, these were both commerce clause cases where Scalia was trying to interpret the original intent of the commerce clause to give the federal government regulatory power when appropriate (in the medical marijuana case) but not when it was inappropriate (such as in the assisted suicide case). The founding fathers clearly meant for one to be covered by the commerce clause, but not the other (this is sarcasm, by the way).

Stare decisis, as long as it supports your position

You're probably a dirty card-holding American Constitution Society member aren't you?

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Scalia has voted for expansive interpretation of the commerce clause. The commerce clause was never interpreted so broadly in the early years of our country.

Good grief, I'm having a flashback to my Con Law classes in the 60's. Maybe I did smoke some of that stuff back then, but don't remember it. Or I lied on the poll. Or I'm attempting to strictly interpret what our founding moderator intended... 8)

[justin]

Con Law. My 2nd lowest grade in law school. Last place went to Ethics 8)

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by justin Con Law. My 2nd lowest grade in law school. Last place went to Ethics 8)

Got an A in Con law. Took the final doped up on codiene after suffering a kidney stone. And I smoked a jay the night before.

[JB]

Scalia is refering to the philosophy that Justice Breyer calls 'Active Liberty'. I'd like Scalia to explain what 'Arms', 'Liberty' and 'Equal Protection' mean. I think he's on the wrong side of many issues, most recently the Texas law prohibiting private homesexual sex among consenting adults, and Oregon's assisted suicide law. Regarding the Texas law, Scalia likes refer to the 'culture wars' and gay groups/agenda. What is it about individual rights and liberty that he doesn't understand?

[vinhmen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by justin To be fair, "Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution." "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."

The very definition of a hypocrite - one that has the gall to insult others for something one preaches or does.

Take the Oregon assisted suicide law that Scalia wanted struck down. *Wasn't it a "matter decided by the people" via referendum, as opposed to being "decided by the Justices of the Supreme Court" as Scalia wanted?*

Let's face it - the Constitution's text can only cover so much literal ground. *To apply it to thousands of cases requires (gasp!) human interpretation of its text and unavoidable personal bias. *

To claim otherwise is like ... claiming one's sh*t don't stink. * *

[setab]

I agree with Martha. There is no such thing as a strict constructionist. There are only those who strictly construe the Consitution to fit their particular bias. I am, however, okay with that, because it is more honest than deluding ourselves with the notion that we can discern what the founding fathers really meant. And what difference does it make anyway? The Constitution was never meant to be absolute truth. It was a statement of fundamental principles reached after a series of debates and compromises in the 1700s. Interpretaion was inevitable and probably desireable.

setab

[mickeyd]

When discussing the Consttiution, we need to remind ourselves that this documant was drawn up by relatively uneducated folks, many of them being farmers (yes, farmer framers). What kind of document would current farmers and printers and surveyers be able to draw up?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeyd When discussing the Consttiution, we need to remind ourselves that this documant was drawn up by relatively uneducated folks, many of them being farmers (yes, farmer framers). What kind of document would current farmers and printers and surveyers be able to draw up?

Uhh...actually most of them were lawyers, with several teachers and doctors thrown in. A few were 'farmers' or 'merchants'.

Most were quite well educated even by modern perspective.

[HFWR]

The Commerce Clause has certainly been streched beyond recognition. What was the Ga. case where a motel was discriminating against "African Americans"? It was found unconstitutioanl on gorunds that it violated the Commerce Clause. Good decision, wrong amendment...