Scalia Dismisses 'Living Constitution'

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia couldn't say it more clearly. The Constitution is a legal document so was written to be unambiguous.

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."

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."

The living document people would squawk quite loud if their contract at work were considered a living document. In that understanding the boss could arbitrarily change the employee's compensation saying "The situation is different from when this contract was signed." , but that is what they advocate with the contract that we have with our government.

A strong constructionist view of the Constitution is essential to guarding us from the capricious nature of man. This is the foundation of the rule of law concept . By making the written word the criteria for deciding disputes we protect ourselves from the temptation of human nature to make emotional decisions.

The written word ensures a reliable and predictable justice. The written word is inconvenient for those who cannot transform society by consensus. This is why the living document nonsense came about. Social reformers were failing to get the laws passed that would favor the structure of society they envisioned. They went to the courts and found judges who shared their views and who were willing to use the twisted logic of a living constitution to make law from the bench.

This is the source of he great anxiety over the latest appointments to the Supreme Court. They know that a plain reading of the text will negate mush that they hold dear. Not because of the relative merits of their issues, but because the document does not allow it without amendment or repeal. To end privet ownership of firearms would require the repeal of the second amendment. Unlimited abortion should have required an amendment. Both processes are cumbersome and time consuming for a reason, social change should be thoroughly debated and examined before it is codified, otherwise upheaval such as experienced in Eastern Europe, The USSR, and China during the communist era will result.

I disagree with Justice Scalia in his assessment that "...you would have to be an idiot to believe that." You merely have to be an impatient social reformer who believes the ends justify the means.

Basil's