Scalia on the Constitution

[Tony]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3169378 ...full article

COLLEGE STATION - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia portrayed himself in a speech here today as one of a dying breed of judges who strictly interpret the Constitution.

"The Constitution, when it comes before a court, should mean exactly what it was intended to mean when it was adopted, nothing more, nothing less," Scalia told a generally supportive audience of several hundred people at the George Bush Presidential Library.

Scalia, whose name is often mentioned on the list of potential successors to ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist, sounded much like a Republican politician as he decried the interpretation of the Constitution as a living document that reflects the values of the time.

Scalia scoffed at his Supreme Court colleagues for using the Constitution as a basis for decisions about the death penalty, abortion and gay rights, none of which are spelled out in the document.

He said the states and the nation need to make laws on those issues through political persuasion and the democratic process, not by claiming there is a constitutional basis for the decisions.

It seems that there are many many things that would have to be abolished if Scalia's interpretation of the constitution were the norm.

 

[hgc]

I would like to hear Scalia explain his vote with the majority in Bush v. Gore in light of his strict interpretation of the constitution.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I would like to hear Scalia explain his vote with the majority in Bush v. Gore in light of his strict interpretation of the constitution.

I would like to hear Scalia painfully choking on a whole artichoke, but your idea is good, too.

 

[Kerberos]

[BIt seems that there are many many things that would have to be abolished if Scalia's interpretation of the constitution were the norm. [/B]

There most certainly would be, It recently occoured to me that technically the US airforce is unconstitutional. Congress is charged with mantaining an army and a navy, and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

 

[UserGoogol]

A question I have periodically felt compelled to ask this forum (but not enough to get out of my semi-lurking status) is to ask what Constitutional Amendments would you want to create if a strict interpretation of Article II Section 9 was to become popular, thus requiring an amendment proccess to get any of the not-explicitly-enumerated-but-still-pretty-cool powers that the United States Government currently holds.

Now seems like a good time to ask that.

 

[crimresearch]

Oh Scalia is all for interpreting the Constitution...his way.
Such gems as 'Just being born in the United States does not neccessarily entitle anyone to Constitutional protections', come to mind.

 

[Tony]

Oh Scalia is all for interpreting the Constitution...his way.
Such gems as 'Just being born in the United States does not neccessarily entitle anyone to Constitutional protections', come to mind.

WTF?? Did he really say that? When? Where? What is his constitutional basis for such an inane idea? If being an american in america doesn't entitle you to constitutional protections, WTF does?

 

[crimresearch]

He said it in a lecture I attended at UVA law school before he became a Supreme.
His rationalization then was that if we could deprive people of their Constitutional rights when they are convicted of a crime, or when they agree to give them up, such as joining the military, that US society should be able to do the same for the 'less productive' members...

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Scalia on the Constitution

There most certainly would be, It recently occoured to me that technically the US airforce is unconstitutional.

So is the FBI, CIA, NSA, SEC, FCC, FEC, the standing army and many other things. I wonder how he apples his literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment? Does he think we only have a right to bear muskets?

"The Constitution, when it comes before a court, should mean exactly what it was intended to mean when it was adopted, nothing more, nothing less,"

 

[Kerberos]

WTF?? Did he really say that? When? Where? What is his constitutional basis for such an inane idea? If being an american in america doesn't entitle you to constitutional protections, WTF does?

I'm not familiar with the context of the statement but being born in the US doesn't necessarily make you American and at least some Constitutional protections seems to apply only to Citizens

 

[Tony]

His rationalization then was that if we could deprive people of their Constitutional rights when they are convicted of a crime, or when they agree to give them up, such as joining the military, that US society should be able to do the same for the 'less productive' members...

What a piece of crap. I guess it would be futile to remind him that the constitution says nothing about productivity?

 

[Tony]

I'm not familiar with the context of the statement but being born in the US doesn't necessarily make you American

Since when?

and at least some Constitutional protections seems to apply only to Citizens

I don't think there's anything in the constituion that says constitutional protections only apply to citizens.

 

[Kerberos]

Since when?

OK I could be wrong. I just wouldn't think that it would automatically make me American if my parents had fx had me while they were on vacation there, though it would of course entitle me to American citizenship if I wanted. This is of course irrelevant, since his statement doesn't appear to have been made in that context.

I don't think there's anything in the constituion that says constitutional protections only apply to citizens.

Not explicitly no, but some of the ammendments give certain rights to "the people" which, as I read it, means Americans, while the ones giving right to a "person" would apply to everybody. SoI, as a non-American, would be entitled to due process of law, but not to carrying arms.

 

[BPSCG]

Oh Scalia is all for interpreting the Constitution...his way.
Such gems as 'Just being born in the United States does not neccessarily entitle anyone to Constitutional protections', come to mind.

Link?

 

[Tony]

OK I could be wrong. I just wouldn't think that it would automatically make me American if my parents had fx had me while they were on vacation there, though it would of course entitle me to American citizenship if I wanted. This is of course irrelevant, since his statement doesn't appear to have been made in that context.

I've always heard that anyone born in the USA is automatically a citizen.

Not explicitly no, but some of the ammendments give certain rights to "the people" which, as I read it, means Americans, while the ones giving right to a "person" would apply to everybody. SoI, as a non-American, would be entitled to due process of law, but not to carrying arms.

But see, with Scalia's extremely strict, static and 18th century based interpretation, non-citizens are afforded every right of the citizen precisely because the constitution isn't explicit.

 

[Kerberos]

I've always heard that anyone born in the USA is automatically a citizen.

As I said I could be wrong.

But see, with Scalia's extremely strict, static and 18th century based interpretation, non-citizens are afforded every right of the citizen precisely because the constitution isn't explicit.

I don't think that follows, after all the constitution doesn't explicitly say that it covers non-citizens either and including them when it isn't intended is just as activistic as excluding them if they were.

 

[crimresearch]

Link?

To what?

 

[Tony]

I don't think that follows, after all the constitution doesn't explicitly say that it covers non-citizens either and including them when it isn't intended is just as activistic as excluding them if they were.

Actually, I don't see how it doesn't follow. You've just highlighted one of many problems of an extremely strict interpretation.

 

[Hutch]

Why is it, when I saw the OP "Scalia on the Constitution" I got an image of Hob-nailed Boots?

Sorry all for the above, I hadn't issued a gratitious insult all week and was afraid I be voted out of the Politics forum just like those Baptist Democrats.