Scalia slams 'living' document philosophy

[**DONOTDELETE**]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/frame/direct.asp?SITE=www.jsonline.com/ne ws/metro/mar01/scalia14031301a.asp (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/frame/direct.asp?SITE=www.jsonline.com/news/metro/mar01/scalia14031301a.asp)
Scalia is a very smart man.And he is an appointee of President Reagan.Scalia and Thomas are great Justices.They represent the interests of the people.Not politicizing like Ginsberg.
The Constitution is an enduring document but not a "living" one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in Milwaukee on Tuesday.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/image01/scalia031401.jpg
Photo/Jeffrey Phelps
Judge Scalia holds "The Constitution" that he carries around as he makes a point to Marquette Law students Tuesday.


Scalia, often reviled as an arch-conservative who would do the nation harm, admitted to a respectful crowd of more than 1,000 people at Marquette University that his "originalist" judicial philosophy is not popular.

In contrast, the idea of a "living Constitution" in which the meaning can be interpreted as society changes is "seductive," he said.

But Scalia also insisted that only his approach - interpreting the Constitution based on the Framers' precise words and the meaning they intended at the time - can preserve the Constitution's guiding principles.

"The Constitution is not an organism," the justice said, "it is a legal document."

Scalia spoke to 500 people inside Weasler Auditorium and to more than 500 more in an adjacent building in the first appearance of a U.S. Supreme Court justice on Marquette's campus in more than 33 years. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a Shorewood native, spoke at a Marquette commencement off campus in 1988

Click here to read more (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/frame/direct.asp?SITE=www.jsonline.com/news/metro/mar01/scalia14031301a.asp)

[PaulRevere]

Put less tactfully:

To say that laws and the Constitution are "living documents" that change with the times is to say that the law and Constitutional rights may be made to mean whatever a political faction wants or needs them to mean.

When this happens, there is a breakdown in RULE OF LAW where people don't obey laws, but must obey the political faction that does the interpretation. Such is the Communist state where, in China for example, vaguely written laws are interpretted in a farcical judicial system built on ARBITRARY JUSTICE mandated by the needs of the Communist Party.

[Venus]

Very well said, Mr. Revere. Thankyou.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Didn't we hear Clintoon parroting the 'living document' line last year?? There are those that want to trash the document and use that line constantly.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> The Constitution is an enduring document but not a "living" one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in Milwaukee on Tuesday. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When this happens, we may as well move to Canada.

[oracle]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hollywood_Whit:
"The Constitution is not an organism," the justice said, "it is a legal document."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is correct. Basically the Constitution is a legal binding agreement among the states as to what powers and authority they were willing to grant to a federal government. No branch of that government, legislative, executive, or judicial (especially judicial), has the legal right to redefine that agreement.

That would be like me walking in to the bank and saying "You know that car loan I signed? The one where I said I would repay the full loan plus pay 10% interest? Well that's a living document and since the economy has tanked. I'm reinterpreting the loan terms. I'm only going to repay 40% of the principle and that will be at a 1% interest rate." Do I need to explain how far I would get with that?

[The_Sonarman]

The USSC Justices need to have the same attitude as Mr. Scalia.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>"The Constitution is not an organism," the justice said, "it is a legal document."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's "it" in a nutshell.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

I suggest that you all read Scalia's book "A Matter of Interpretation." It is very, very good.

[MaximumSam]

I haven't read it, but I did take legislation last year and we talked about his approach a great deal. His technique can be limited however, by new stuff. What the Framers intended 200 years ago may not be what they would intend today - hence, the living document. If the Framers thought it ok for everyone to have access to weapons, would they intend for everyone to mount a machine gun on the hood of their car?

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
MaximumSam said:
I haven't read it, but I did take legislation last year and we talked about his approach a great deal. His technique can be limited however, by new stuff. What the Framers intended 200 years ago may not be what they would intend today - hence, the living document. If the Framers thought it ok for everyone to have access to weapons, would they intend for everyone to mount a machine gun on the hood of their car?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, Sam, since every one of the Founders was armed with the most sophisticated weaponry available to the regular army of the day, I'd have to say that they'd likely have a lot less trouble with it than people might think. In fact, no, I don't think they'd have any trouble with it at all.

Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin etal were all in favor of the "people" being armed to the point that they could overthrow the government, should it become tyrannical. In fact, that's exactly what they did.

So, machine guns mounted on the hoods of cars?? Maybe not. But, private ownership of M-16s, grenades, tec-9s and the like?? I think they'd be fascinated by the inovation, but not against the general public being armed with them. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that they'd own these weapons themselves!!

[MaximumSam]

So, machine guns mounted on the hoods of cars?? Maybe not. But, private ownership of M-16s, grenades, tec-9s and the like?? I think they'd be fascinated by the inovation, but not against the general public being armed with them. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that they'd own these weapons themselves!!

Maybe they would. I certainly have no idea. But that is precisely my point - should every decision relate back to the ideals and goals of the 18th Century?

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

No, not every decision. Just the decisions that involve the parts of the Constitution that were in place in the 18th Century.

[MaximumSam]

Hence, what say you on citizens driving around sedans with machine guns mounted on top?

Also, since I am studying the Fourth Amendment right now, what do you think about the warrant requirement controversy?

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

I don't see a problem with allowing for changes in technology. No new rights are really being created here. Of course, there are limitations, and I will admit that there is a line to be drawn. For example, a state could ban the use of atomic weapons by private individuals.

I have doubts that any warrant is required under the Fourth (although limitations on the issuance certainly exist). I do see where one might interpret the Fourth to require warrants to meet reasonableness, but only in cases where warrants were required under the common law. Whatever the case, I certainly find the Court's interpretation of the requirement to be somewhat laughable. I find no justification for the strange list of rules and exceptions that the Court has created in this area.

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
MaximumSam said:
So, machine guns mounted on the hoods of cars?? Maybe not. But, private ownership of M-16s, grenades, tec-9s and the like?? I think they'd be fascinated by the inovation, but not against the general public being armed with them. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that they'd own these weapons themselves!!

Maybe they would. I certainly have no idea. But that is precisely my point - should every decision relate back to the ideals and goals of the 18th Century?

[/ QUOTE ]
When that ideal/goal was/is to insure that the people will eternally be able to overthrow the overbearing tyranny that government ALWAYS becomes, absent proper restraint...YES.

When that ideal/goal was/is to insure that the people will eternally have an avenue to levy grievances against the government without fear of reprisal from said...YES.

When that ideal/goal was/is to insure that the people will eternally be secure against warrantless searches of their person and property and illegal seizures of said...YES.

When that ideal/goal was/is to insure that the people will eternally be protected against incriminating themselves in a court of law or having some faceless accusor convict them in absentia...YES.

Need I go on?? You see, Sam, these are not goals/ideals of the 18th century...they are the truths of history and thus endure the ages.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

There is some Truth to the 'living document' approach, as new situations and arguments arrive that the courts have to make decisions on, and this often has the effect of making new law.

Take for example copyrighting new forms of communication that have as an integral part of it the work of other people, like computer programs. The EULAs for many software systems are too rigid, and essentially unenforceable, but someone might drag this before the courts, and the Supremem Court has to decide at somelevel whose side the constitutionis on.

Can genetic code be copyrighted, for example, and someone prosecuted for breeding organisms that have that code but by natural and not genetically engineered means?

Should the Feds be required to get a warrant to hack into your server if it is at a site off your own property? How about email accounts? Cookies?

Can items sold in a 3D virtual world game be taxed by the IRS? Can one sue for libel for things said in that environment that are only in regard to the virtual character?

Etc. These things may be coming down the pike.

We have to have our courts given enough leeway to decide on matters unforeseable 50, 30, 20 or even 10 years ago.