The Constitution - As written and intended
February 16, 2006 by Conservative Culture
Filed under General
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 provided in the Constitution. However, it should be read as the writers intended it to be read and understood.
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.”…
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 breathing’ document is the activist code for being able to ignore original intent and to discover new things never envisioned from the document. California Conservative also draws this quote and reveals just how inflexible the activists are once they twist the Constitution to where they want it.
Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided ???not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court. 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.
The reason many of the MSC’s (main stream churches) have become so liberalized is because of this very principle of a ‘living breathing’ document. Certainly unlike the Constitution, the Bible calls itself ‘living and active’.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. - Hebr. 4:12
What the liberals in the MSC’s have done is to lose the ‘original intent’ of the Bible is neglected and even ignored. Why? The same reason the liberals have ignore original intent of the Constitution. If the took the document as intended then they would not be able to impose new ‘truths’ that fit with their attempts to reshape either the church or America.
Others on this topic:
Atlas Shrugs
Wizbang
The Conservative Zone
No God Blog (anti-Scalia)
mxracer652 on Thu, 16th Feb 2006 12:35 pm
So, which “original” Constitution are you referring to?
3/5 slave vote included?
With or without Prohibition? Female voting?? Blah, blah, etc.
The ‘originalist’ term is rather empty, we’re all ‘modificationists’ just to varying degrees.
1 MPTomb on Thu, 16th Feb 2006 1:13 pm
Racer,
I believe what the justice is referring to, is judges legislating from the bench to justify abortion, homosexuality and other issues most of the country would vote against. No one is saying slavery is right and that blacks don’t deserve the right to vote.
Mark on Thu, 16th Feb 2006 1:23 pm
This liberal argument is old and refuses to acknowledge that ‘original’ intent and ’strict constructionist’ refer to an approach to how the Constitution should be approached. One must understand the intent and meaning as it is written.
It is obvious that amendments to the Bill of Rights is a part of that original intent. Hence you have subjects which are duly addressed and amendments which were added by the people.
As for which Constitution… how about the one we have always had. At last check the original Constitution still stands as written. So does it’s original intent for those willing to understand it.
mxracer652 on Thu, 16th Feb 2006 1:48 pm
MP:
That is what I interpret the originalist term as meaning, although politics has put a veil on the term to elevate it to some form of ultimate patriotism. If that’s the intent, fine with me, but there’s no reason to bastardize the English language that way. The semantics of it are only there to further confuse Joe Citizen, which leads into what Mark posted…
Mark,
Rather than ad hominem attacks, stick to the rules of logic, and debate the idea, not the debater. You’ll be warmly welcomed in more places when you leave emotional response out of the discussion, and avoid fallacious arguments, no matter how differing your opinions are to others’.
Now, I have to disagree with your assessment that the currently passed amendments were part of the original intent. See prohibition. I haven’t seen too much in personal letters or the Federalist papers to argue otherwise, I will take correction here.
As for the original constitution still standing:
See also 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.
That was part of the original text, and no longer stands, yet contradicts your earlier statement.
Mark on Thu, 16th Feb 2006 2:45 pm
The writers provided the means and method by which the Constitution could be amended in found in Article V. - Original Intent.
The contradiction you love to throw out only highlights my point. The changes were correct and in light of the Declaration of independence we find that such changes were more consistent than the original 3/5 wording.
MP’s statements arrive at the heart. You have Supreme Court rulings which only reflect their beliefs and vision for the Constitution. Roe vs Wade is one such ruling. It defines rights which are not found in the document and in fact rules as constitutional things which contradict the original founding documents. For example, the section you quoted to me. Amendment XIV Section 1.
Millions of lives have been terminated because those lives have not received protection of the law. When laws are passed they end up being ruled ‘unconstitutional’ by court members who do not hold to a ’strict constructionist’ view.
mxracer652 on Thu, 16th Feb 2006 4:16 pm
Mark,
The changes you speak of being “correct” (RE: personal rights) are part of your own opinion, and as such, you backed them with the Declaration as being an original founding document. While this is reasonable, it is not consistent w/ the BOR, and these changes clearly are not part of the original document. Had the intent of women voting or abolishing slavery been part of the original, it would have been expressly stated, as it was contrary to actual practice.
This is one example of defining rights not found in the original, and having laws that were on the books for years, being found unconstitutional.
The “originalist” definition you gave earlier isn’t consistent with your own views. I’ve seen this elsewhere, and is why I dislike the term originalist being used. It’s vague enough to get support from many people who have a different idea of what it is to be an originalist.
While I can understand your argument about abortion (depriving life), -nowhere- is homosexuality mentioned. That’s strictly dogma.
Conservative Culture » Faith, The Constitution and Interpretation on Fri, 7th Jul 2006 9:30 pm
[...] There are times when you just feel good that there are others who hold the same ideas about a topic. In this case the Patriot Post had this recent newsletter on the Constitution. It is very good and has mirrored some of my views… the correlation between how the Bible is treated by the lib churches and how libs in the society treat the Constitution. But what, you ask, does this Bible lesson have to do with the Constitution? In truth, the same fallacies that affect biblical interpretation also affect our interpretation of the Constitution. [...]