PONCE, Puerto Rico (Feb. 14) – People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn’t change with society are “idiots,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.
This is the level to which some conservatives have descended. Insults against groups of people who simply disagree isn’t criticism, it’s intolerance.Theists are not idiots — they are simply wrong. Scalia is not an idiot, he’s an ass.
Hmm,
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
If you were a landed white male who owned slaves you got 3/5 of a vote for each man, woman and child slave you owned. It made for a nice way of upping your say in the electorial process.
That “one-man (err, one-person) one-vote” radical BS is the downfall of the Republic.
Scalia is absolutely correct – His friends would benefit if we refused to consider the Constitution an evolving document.
“I shot a man in Texas just to watch the jokes about me on TDS.” VP Cheney.
“It was open season on lawyers, wasn’t it?”
And, as we read more of the material it appears that VP Cheney exected a perfect 180 degree Pirouette in his hunting tutu and blasted a 6’2″ bright hunter-orange Quail….
pnuhn@gampac.org –
I tried to get onto your website, but not luck. Am I doing something wrong?
anybody have a source link?
pixel:
Whose website, exactly?
I think Scalia and Cheney should go hunting together again soon
You read “The Handmaid’s Tale”, Alex? Well done! A great book. Scary as hell.
pnuhn
thats exactly why we should pay attention
Unrelated musing…
The intricate workings of a watch, they explain, demands an intelligent watchmaker. And that, in turn, is analogous to nature: It?s ?design? demands and intelligent designer.
But the analogy has some loop holes.
I?ve seen nature procreate. I?ve yet to see two watches mating and giving birth to a litter of little clocks. Nature excels of it?s own volition. Watches have to be wound up. Constantly.
What’s more, one can observe a watchmaker making a watch. Likewise, one can observe the universe developing. When observing the creation of the watch, we see a watchmaker. When observing the development of the universe, we see no Watchmaker, only the universe itself.
Seems the watchmaker analogy doesn’t prove God’s existence, but disproves it.
Comment from: Peach63 [Member]
I thought that myself about the “moral turpitude” question.
Like someone is really going to write: “I am a torturer in my own country, in charge of gouging out eyes and cutting off hands.”
if you put that down you would be hired to work at gitmo
please let this right wing fundie die in 2008. in fact let roberts die too. = problem solved.
off topic but found this on wimp.com
its about a guy who is a theologian scholar who decided yo find out you wrote the bible
robear do really want eny one to die it almost sonds xtian to me lol
The Constitution – As written and intended
Scalia exposes his ‘originalist’ views of the Constitution. Only if I could have been there to hear the speech. For I also reject the ‘living, breathing’ document argument. Certainly there is a tremendous amount of flexibility …
Every time I see Scalia I am reminded of a charater from Looney Tunes. I am unsure what animal it was supposed to be, but it was a representation of Lou Costello as something gopher-like. He is one of two Justices that should not be on the court, the other being Ginsburg. Neither of them seem able to put aside personal and political beliefs to rule on the law. The other Justices, while hardly perfect, can and have done so.
rainbows4dinosaurs
No, originalists do not believe that. They believe that the C. means what it says, and that it should be read both as the text means and as the authors meant it, first by looking at the definition of the word use at the time they were written, and when that is not clear enough, what the authors wrote in other documents pertaining to it. They believe that the amendments are a part of it as well, and that they were used to correct errors and make changes needed for the conditions prevelent then.
I smell a straw man being set up.
Every originalist includes the amendments. The term originalist refers to how to read and interpret the text of the C. as it stands today with all amendments incorporated, not to the original un-amended text.
A straw man knock down, I was right. But originalists do consider it inspired, whether divinly or secularly. And if there is such a thing as a realist version of a miracle, the success of the revolution is it. It was the equivelent of Puerto Rico fighting and winning it’s freedom from todays U.S. and going on to become a preosperous and peaceful country.
The problem with considering the C. as living and bendable is that rules so flexible that they can be read any way current needs require are not rules. They become meaningless.
That is why the two amendment procedures were included. To make changes to account for things not thought of and changes in the world.
Every originalist I know thinks the amendment process has been used far too INFREQUNTLY, which has led to the current near meaningless state of the C.
As well, every originalist I know says just because something is Constitutional it is not necessarily advisable or good. At the same time, things that are advisable but unConstitutional should be authorised by amendment, not by the current sophistry of using the Commerce Clause to empower the Fed. Gov. to do virtually anything it wants to.
Read the C., where do you see authorization for probably 75% of what the feds are controlling right now?
Whether these actions are good or bad is not the issue, whether they are within the C. authority of the F.G. is. If they are good and needed they should be authorized by amendment, not by the political whim of the mere majority.
I list: Drug War/DEA, FDA, FCC, ATFE, Dept. of Education, Soc. Sec. Admin. HUD. Dozens of others.
If they are needed, they should be authorized by amendment.
That is what originalists believe.
I’ll tell ya what, I would far more prefer to play p0ker with an originalist than with someone that thinks rules are living and breathing bendable things. An originalist will always think that a full house beats a pair. A revisionist will say sure, but change the definition of full house every hand to suit himself.
I consider the Constitution, which is the set of rules for a government with the power to destroy us all, far more important than the rules for a little p0ker game. As such, they should be the rules least open to interpretation of all, precisely because that way we all know what the rules are and do not get blindsided by a change in the political winds.
Sooo….then these “originalists” are actually “originalists plus the modifications to the original that stuck, but only with the modifications that we deem acceptable, the rest of you can eat shit” originalists. Or as I like to think of it, modificationists.
It’s another empty political term, with no real meaning, other than to be divisive.
mxracer652,
I think your catch-phrase is far more elegant. I predict it is going to be a winner.
Well HNZ,
As you, RA, r4d, HMDK, and countless others have shown repeatedly, this is 100% grayscale, not black/white. I left Mr(s). Conservative Culture something along the same lines, I’ll see what (s)he has to say.
I tend to agree with Tom a little on this one. I don’t think ‘originalist’ is an empty term at all. Its meaning is easily contrasted against, say, a literalist interpretation of the C. The idea being that we try to interpret the C in the sense in which it was written. It is a very simple hermeneutic exercise (in principle). As far as the amendment process, I am not going to touch that part.
And who could deny the last bit about endorsing a clear interpretation of the rules it sets forth for government? As a philosophy major, I know how critical it is that the terms and rules of a text are set forth clearly for all parties, otherwise any discourse degrades into rubbish.
To try to pigeonhole Constitutional Originalism as an atttempt to strictly interpret or laud the very original document, and only the original itself, is absurd. I am not necessarily an originalist myself, but it is a legitimate approach to constitutional interpretation.
tomwright,
There has been a death in my family and I am a little preoccupied, so I will try to be brief.
Thank you for a very thorough and thought provoking response to my post. Let me assure you that it was not my intent to battle with straw men – it is obvious that I may be misunderstanding just what many ‘originalists’ mean by the term ‘originalism.’
As usual, there is much in your post that I find myself agreeing with. If the definition of originalism really is a discipline of looking at the historical context of the Constitution when assessing it’s meaning, sticking to that meaning, and requiring the amendment process whenever we feel it is time to improve/evolve the structure and principles of our government, then perhaps I too am an originalist.
But the problem here is that the constitution is much like the Bible in the way it is treated nowadays. Like the Bible, every single political faction claims the Constitution to be on their side. And as a testimony to the subjectivity of history, every political faction in this country can also point to some random quote of the so-called founding fathers to bolster their varying ideologies and constitutional interpretations. So, as mxracer suggested, it becomes easy for such terms as ‘originalism,’ ‘strict constructionist,’ or whatever to be skewed and co-opted for many different and often mutually exclusive ends.
endNote: I just deleted the rest of this post because I’m really not able to get into a back and forth debate right now, so I’m just going to let it go. Perhaps some other time.
r4d:
I am terribly sorry to hear that. My condolences to you and your family.
has anyone else noticed the ironic nature of the statements by our “chosen one?”
he constantly complains about activist judges, yet he has shown nothing but support for an activist judge like scoundrel scalia…
on the other hand, he is probably the most “activist” president in our history…can i ask when doesn’t he act on instincty rather than the voice of the people.
man, i hate that guy.
alexgator1:
Please explain how Scalia?s authoring the majority opinion on the case ?in effect hand[s] the presidency to Bush.? It still sounds like you?re asserting that Scalia didn?t need the other four consenting votes to get a majority?that his vote somehow has the power to supersede those of any dissenting justices.
r4d, my condolences as well.
Zac,
I re-read Tom’s post, and see the point of making new amendments. There’s less room for interpretation bias. But how specific does it need to be?
I’m still getting conflicting definitions of what an “originalist” is, from people everywhere, and depending on your personal views, it means a variety of things. This is why I call the term empty, its definition in the political arena has been intentionally left vague, for nothing other than gathering support around confusion of a term.
As you said, it’s degenerated into rubbish.
Well jcc I should revise my statement to say that the Supreme Court handed the presidency to GW Bush.
Alex.
You read “The Handmaid’s Tale”, Alex? Well done! A great book. Scary as hell.
Not only did I read it but I reread it AND saw the movie adaptation. Recommended reading for anyone who is concerned about the lurch toward theocracy that we are currently experiencing in the USA and it should be on the shelf of all who are true patriots that care about this country and it’s democratic future.
Alex.
I just wikied ‘originalism,’ and boy was I off the mark. I can totally see its merits, and there are also some interesting arguments against it. But Tom was right, I was misconstruing the issue due to a combination of my own ‘liberal bias’ and a failure to even look the damn word up. Shame on me.
Legal philosophy is interesting stuff. Maybe I should pull my head out of the Dawkins pile for a while and read up on it.
rainbows,
Please accept my condolences as well. I am so sorry for your loss.
alex & atheistatic,
I read “Handmaid’s Tale” a few years ago in my reading group. Atwood, right? Indeed, scary stuff. And I agree, highly recommended reading. Didn’t know there was a movie adaptation. I’ll have to look for it.
r4d:
Deepest condolences on your loss, my friend.
pixel: gampac.org is for the http://www.GodlessAmericans.org
or http://www.gampac.org that will take you to the same place.
It is a political action committee for atheists.
mxracer:
from http://www.answers.com/topic/originalism?method=6:
“In the context of U.S. Constitutional interpretation, originalism is a family of theories which share the starting point that a Constitution (or statute) does not evolve in meaning, but rather, has a fixed and knowable meaning, which should be adhered to by Judges. A neologism, “Originalism” is a Formalist theory of law which is often used in concert with Textualism. It is popular among U.S. political conservatives (although some liberals, e.g. Hugo Black and Akhil Amar also subscribe to the theory; Amar’s book The Bill of Rights offers a monumental Originalist defense of incorporation); some opponents have charged that it is merely a form of judicial activism.
“Opponents of Originalism, often seeking to discredit it, refer to Originalism as the theory of Original intent. Just as football is a sport, but “sport” is not a synonym for “football,” so as with original intent and Originalism. Although Original intent is one Originalist theory, there are actually several theories, most of which categorically reject intentionalism. Rather, the term Originalism refers to a family of related – but distinctly different – theories:”
I list them here for brevity;
1. Original Intent
2. Original Understanding
3. Original Meaning
Read the source in its entirety. Interesting stuff.
r4d
My condolences on the loss of your family member. May your memories be sweet ones, and long-lasting.