Justice Scalia Calls "Living Constitution" A Fraudulent Concept

"PONCE, Puerto Rico - 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."

Gee whiz! All of my civics teachers, political science teachers and the constitutional scholars I have associated with in the past are idiots. I wish I had known that before I took those courses, engaged in discourse or associated with folks. I wonder what the foremost scholar on the US Constitution, Prof. Lawrence Tribe, has to say about this? I wish I could get a quote from Tribe in response to Scalia.

"'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."

Who is the idiot here: those of us that believe in the adapyability of the Constitution or Scalia that believes his "philosophy" (actually, it's an ideology) keeps him from doing things he would like to do? As I read the Constitution, it is Article III of the Constitution, combined with the Bill of Rights and the remaining Amendments, that provides the authority, sets the parameters of government and delineates the role of Justice Scalia. Scalia can't do what he wants to do--including setting aside Miranda, Gideon, Griwold, Marbury, Everson, Roe and other important precedents--because the Constitution is adaptable and flexible to certain limits.

"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.'"

First, Scalia does not have a "judicial philosophy... He has an ideology and, according to recent reports of his receiving trips, honraria and golf outings under the guise of guest speaking, it apparently is for sale. Anyone notice a contradition between what he is saying and what he does? Remember Gore v. Bush (and I refer you to the analysis provided by Alan Dershowitz)? Scalia argues that since the Constitution doesn't specifically delineate a provision for privacy, it is not an inalienable right. But the 9th and 10th Amendments specifically reserve those rights not delineated in the Constitution to the people. The 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Amendments specifically speak of issues that INHERENTLY involve privacy. But Scalia claims a strict "originalism" that, apparently, ignores those Amendments and words that guarantee particular domains of privacy as being off limits to the government without probable cause and due process.

"Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided 'not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court.'"

Who's the idiot? Has he read Article III that specifically gives the Court the authority and duty to review ALL laws made under the Constitution by the Congress and approved by the Executive? Perhaps Scalia is not capable of reading the Constitution without the bias of his ideology?

"They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said.

I don't know what or who he is speaking about, but it doesn't make much sense. If Scalia is getting senile, I hope he will stay in office until we can find a reasonable person to take the reins in the Oval Office so that we can nominate someone that can actually understand the words, context, intent and HISTORY (aka precedents) of our Constitution.

"Scalia was invited to Puerto Rico by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. The organization was founded in 1982 as a debating society by students who believed professors at the top law schools were too liberal. Conservatives and libertarians mainly make up the 35,000 members."

Yes, ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES like Scalia, Alito and others that place their grab for power, wealth and influence over the rights of "we the people." Somebody needs to read the PREAMBLE of our Constitution to thse idiots so that the six basic purposes of our government can be reiterated to them... Something about JUSTICE is in that list of purposes... Perhaps Scalia should read it, then recite it alound to Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Stevens, Kennedy and Roberts before they hear arguments for each case brought to the Court.

Supreme Court

Federalist Society