Kaylara
March 18th, 2001, 10:21 PM
By Bev Conover
March 16, 2001—If the thinking of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in laying out his "originalist" theory of the Constitution, which he declared a dead rather than a living document, is followed to the end he is espousing, all amendments other than the original first 10 would be negated and the South's "peculiar institution" of slavery would be back in business.
In a chilling speech Tuesday at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Scalia, one of the Rehnquist Five who gave George W. Bush the right to squat in the White House, contended that only by interpreting the Constitution using the framers' exact works and their intentions at the time can its guiding principles be preserved.
Denouncing the idea of the Constitution being a living document—an idea he called "seductive"—Scalia said, "The Constitution is not an organism, it is a legal document."
To further contort the framers' aim, the man who a few weeks ago claimed the Constitution was there to protect the court from the people, maintained the "living" document idea has led to candidates for the federal judiciary to being grilled in Senate hearings about what rights they believe are in the Constitution, and that has somehow put us on the road to the people choosing and demanding judges based on their political beliefs, rather than their ability to interpret the national charter.
Then in twisting what the framers meant when they sought to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority, Scalia said, "The horrible consequence of that, you understand, is that it places the meaning of the Bill of Rights in the hands of the very entity against which the Bill of Rights was meant to protect you against, that being the majority."
Scalia's comments that the nation wasn't built on judges interpreting the Constitution on the changes in society, but on what he perceives to be the framers' words somehow carved in stone, surely must send shivers down our spines as did Justice Charles Evan Hughes' cavalier remark that the Constitution was whatever the justices said it was.
So by Scalia's desire to take us back to the 18th century, African-Americans won't just be going to the back of the bus, they will be in chains again, subject to the whims of their white masters, and bought and sold like beasts of burden. After all, the slavery issue was the big compromise in the Constitution. And it would also follow that:
The Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting slavery or involuntary servitude, except as punishment for people duly convicted of crimes, would be abolished;
States will not be compelled to afford their residents due process and equal protection under the law (Fourteenth Amendment);
That black males will lose their right to vote—not that slaves, male or female, had voting rights—but white women would keep their right to vote, because they were written out in the Fourteenth Amendment and no women from that point were allowed to vote until the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified;
The income tax is history (Sixteenth Amendment)—something that will make Scalia's right wing allies very happy.
Senators will no longer be directly elected by the people (Seventeenth Amendment), but will again be chosen by the state legislatures;
Prohibition (Eighteenth Amendment) was just a blot on the Constitution and the Twenty-First Amendment to repeal it no longer holds, which means states can no longer regulate the free flow of liquor;
Citizens of any state or any country can sue any other state (Eleventh Amendment), knocking a hole in the idea of soverign immunity;
The losing candidate in a presidential election will again automatically become vice president. (Twelfth Amendment);
The federal government will have no obligation to pay the public debt (Fourteenth Amendment);
Congress will be relieved of the burden of a two-thirds vote of each house to allow someone who has engaged in rebellion or insurrection, or given aid and comfort to any enemy, to serve as a representative or a senator. (Fourteenth Amendment);
There will be no more lame duck presidents, because the prohibition on serving more than two terms will be gone (Twenty-second Amendment);
The District of Columbia will lose its presidential electors (Twenty-third Amendment);
Poll taxes will be back and people denied the right to vote if they haven't paid them (Twenty-fourth Amendment);
The ability to deal with a disabled president or filling a vacancy in the office of the vice president would no longer be allowed (Twenty-five Amendment);
And 18-year olds would lose the right to vote (Twenty-sixth Amendment).
In addition, broadcast journalists would lose their First Amendment rights, because the First Amendment specifies "the press," meaning print. Radio and television didn't exist in the 18th century, along with many other things.
Preposterous? Not according to Scalia's "originalist" interpretation. After all, the framers had no hand in these amendments.
Someone might ask Justice Originalist how he, Chief Justice William "Lord High Executioner" Rehnquist, Justices Sandra "I Can't Retire If Gore Is President" Day O'Connor, Anthony "Keep Them Guessing" Kennedy and Clarence "Uncle" Thomas could embrace the equal protection clause of the "unoriginal" Fourteenth Amendment to make the loser of the presidential election squatter-in chief? Or did Scalia bend his "originalist" theory out of shape, because the equal protection clause came in so handy for protecting GW Bush from the people?
Then Scalia had the audacity to tell his audience—described as "respectful" by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (only because those who came to protest Scalia's hand in putting George W. Bush in the White House were kept safely tucked away from the justice)—that the remedy is for advocates of issues, such as abortion rights and the death penalty, to garner support in order to get Congress to pass laws.
"That's flexibility. What the proponents of the 'living Constitution' want to bring you assuredly is not flexibility; it is rigidity," he told his "respectful" audience.
Scalia has a peculiar definition of flexibility. Then so did the Ayatollah Khomeni, who took Iran back to the 7th century.
What Scalia forgot to add is that the courts, especially if the benches are filled with "originalists" (read that Federalist Society) judges, can knock down such laws.
Just think, this fellow aspires to replace Rehnquist as chief justice.
Kaylara
March 16, 2001—If the thinking of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in laying out his "originalist" theory of the Constitution, which he declared a dead rather than a living document, is followed to the end he is espousing, all amendments other than the original first 10 would be negated and the South's "peculiar institution" of slavery would be back in business.
In a chilling speech Tuesday at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Scalia, one of the Rehnquist Five who gave George W. Bush the right to squat in the White House, contended that only by interpreting the Constitution using the framers' exact works and their intentions at the time can its guiding principles be preserved.
Denouncing the idea of the Constitution being a living document—an idea he called "seductive"—Scalia said, "The Constitution is not an organism, it is a legal document."
To further contort the framers' aim, the man who a few weeks ago claimed the Constitution was there to protect the court from the people, maintained the "living" document idea has led to candidates for the federal judiciary to being grilled in Senate hearings about what rights they believe are in the Constitution, and that has somehow put us on the road to the people choosing and demanding judges based on their political beliefs, rather than their ability to interpret the national charter.
Then in twisting what the framers meant when they sought to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority, Scalia said, "The horrible consequence of that, you understand, is that it places the meaning of the Bill of Rights in the hands of the very entity against which the Bill of Rights was meant to protect you against, that being the majority."
Scalia's comments that the nation wasn't built on judges interpreting the Constitution on the changes in society, but on what he perceives to be the framers' words somehow carved in stone, surely must send shivers down our spines as did Justice Charles Evan Hughes' cavalier remark that the Constitution was whatever the justices said it was.
So by Scalia's desire to take us back to the 18th century, African-Americans won't just be going to the back of the bus, they will be in chains again, subject to the whims of their white masters, and bought and sold like beasts of burden. After all, the slavery issue was the big compromise in the Constitution. And it would also follow that:
The Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting slavery or involuntary servitude, except as punishment for people duly convicted of crimes, would be abolished;
States will not be compelled to afford their residents due process and equal protection under the law (Fourteenth Amendment);
That black males will lose their right to vote—not that slaves, male or female, had voting rights—but white women would keep their right to vote, because they were written out in the Fourteenth Amendment and no women from that point were allowed to vote until the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified;
The income tax is history (Sixteenth Amendment)—something that will make Scalia's right wing allies very happy.
Senators will no longer be directly elected by the people (Seventeenth Amendment), but will again be chosen by the state legislatures;
Prohibition (Eighteenth Amendment) was just a blot on the Constitution and the Twenty-First Amendment to repeal it no longer holds, which means states can no longer regulate the free flow of liquor;
Citizens of any state or any country can sue any other state (Eleventh Amendment), knocking a hole in the idea of soverign immunity;
The losing candidate in a presidential election will again automatically become vice president. (Twelfth Amendment);
The federal government will have no obligation to pay the public debt (Fourteenth Amendment);
Congress will be relieved of the burden of a two-thirds vote of each house to allow someone who has engaged in rebellion or insurrection, or given aid and comfort to any enemy, to serve as a representative or a senator. (Fourteenth Amendment);
There will be no more lame duck presidents, because the prohibition on serving more than two terms will be gone (Twenty-second Amendment);
The District of Columbia will lose its presidential electors (Twenty-third Amendment);
Poll taxes will be back and people denied the right to vote if they haven't paid them (Twenty-fourth Amendment);
The ability to deal with a disabled president or filling a vacancy in the office of the vice president would no longer be allowed (Twenty-five Amendment);
And 18-year olds would lose the right to vote (Twenty-sixth Amendment).
In addition, broadcast journalists would lose their First Amendment rights, because the First Amendment specifies "the press," meaning print. Radio and television didn't exist in the 18th century, along with many other things.
Preposterous? Not according to Scalia's "originalist" interpretation. After all, the framers had no hand in these amendments.
Someone might ask Justice Originalist how he, Chief Justice William "Lord High Executioner" Rehnquist, Justices Sandra "I Can't Retire If Gore Is President" Day O'Connor, Anthony "Keep Them Guessing" Kennedy and Clarence "Uncle" Thomas could embrace the equal protection clause of the "unoriginal" Fourteenth Amendment to make the loser of the presidential election squatter-in chief? Or did Scalia bend his "originalist" theory out of shape, because the equal protection clause came in so handy for protecting GW Bush from the people?
Then Scalia had the audacity to tell his audience—described as "respectful" by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (only because those who came to protest Scalia's hand in putting George W. Bush in the White House were kept safely tucked away from the justice)—that the remedy is for advocates of issues, such as abortion rights and the death penalty, to garner support in order to get Congress to pass laws.
"That's flexibility. What the proponents of the 'living Constitution' want to bring you assuredly is not flexibility; it is rigidity," he told his "respectful" audience.
Scalia has a peculiar definition of flexibility. Then so did the Ayatollah Khomeni, who took Iran back to the 7th century.
What Scalia forgot to add is that the courts, especially if the benches are filled with "originalists" (read that Federalist Society) judges, can knock down such laws.
Just think, this fellow aspires to replace Rehnquist as chief justice.
Kaylara