Once More Into the Breach

Finding Nonsense and Beating it Sensible

My Photo
Name:
Location: Virginia

I used to watch TV news and yell at the box. Now I jump up from the couch, sit at the computer and begin to type laughing maniacally saying "Wait until they read this." It's more fun than squashing tadpoles



Free Kareem


Subscribe to Once More Into the Breach

http://www.wikio.com

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

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

3 Comments:

|
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think what Scalia meant with the idiot statement is that the judges who advocate this kind of interpretation know better, they know they are not interpreting fairly, but instead are seeking a means to an end. If they must demolish the logical and obvious interpretation, or make up 'prenumbras' in order to, say, legalize abortion at any time in all states, well, the RESULT is what counts (like you said, end justifies the means).
All Scalia is saying is that these people know what they are doing, and they are idiots to believe that the end justifies the means, because they are ignoring that 'the means' render the founding document meaningless and powerless.

10:16 AM  
Blogger Jack Steiner said...

Scalia made a foolish remark. The Constitution is most definitely a living document. The framers constructed it so that it could be amended to adjust for any necessary changes that might be needed down the road.

1:20 PM  
Blogger Xyba said...

In the sense that it can be amended and have parts repealed it is a living document, but the people who most often refer to it as such pour a completely different meaning into the phrase. They want to reinterpret what is already written in the light of expediency rather that as it was intended. So I wouldn't be so quick to say it was a foolish remark.

6:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home