One Of My Favorite Justices Speaks – Everyone Needs To Listen
Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Antonin Scalia was in Puerto Rico at the invitation of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies where he made a few comments on “Originalism”. Which is a term extremely descriptive of Strict Constructionism.
Scalia does have a philosophy, it’s called originalism. That’s what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do.
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. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things.
Hmmm, seems to me that these words have been printed somewhere before. Now where was that… OH YEAH – HERE.
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.
This brings to mind a few of the 45 goals of the Communist Party as outlined in the Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen and read into the Congressional Record on January 20, 1963.
Specifically:
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
These are all issues that the ACLU and other Communist Front Organizations rely on the courts to decide for them. And to get their desired outcome, it requires the “living document” theory to be in place. It requires expansion of intended meanings of the Constitution from a liberal perspective. Such as Hugo Black’s views on the 14th Amendment forcing the application of the Bill of Rights onto the states.
Black’s assumptions were previously proposed to the Congress and subsequently rejected in 1875. But were adopted by several states.
No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . No public property and no public revenue . . . shall be appropriated to . . . the support of any school . . . under the control of any religious or anti-religious sect, organization, or denomination. . . . And no such particular creed or tenets shall be read or taught in any school or institution supported . . . by such revenue. – The Blaine Amendments
Liberals cannot get their policies passed through normal legislative and political means, so they resort to unchecked judges and justices to make these decisions for them. This is called Judicial Activism. And it stems from not reading the actual text of the Constitution, but rather finding hidden meanings which don’t actually exist.
This is a trend that no only needs to be curbed, it need eliminated. Those on the left will say that they wish to protect civil liberties. This contention is nothing less than liberal smoke and mirrors. A scare tactics which brings up images of intolerable times in our nation’s history. This is not so.
If the actual text of the Constitution is followed, no one has anything to fear. Intolerance existed because there were individuals who read “hidden meanings” in our founding document. And ironically, they were Democrats.
The most intolerant “organization” in American history is without a doubt the Ku Klux Klan. Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat, was a member of the KKK. David Duke – Democrat. George Wallace – Democrat (He garnered the support of both the KKK and the NAACP – go figure).
The most memorable act of total ignorance must be the Central High School stand-off in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1954. Nine African-American children were set to start school at Central and were prevented from doing so under not only the sanction of Governor Orval Faubus, but at his direction. Faubus was a Communist AND elected Governor on the Democratic ticket.
Faubus directed the Arkansas National Guard to prevent these 9 children from entering Central. This was eventually quelled by President Dwight David Eisenhower, a Republican, when he sent federal troops into Little Rock to escort these children into the building and to class.
But the other side touts themselves as the “tolerant” ones. This assumption is nothing more than a fantasy. The GOP was founded on the principle of eliminating slavery. But too many people lose track of that fact. And this all stems from the liberal interpretation of the United States Constitution and reading items in the text which aren’t actually there. And revisionist history, the biggest tool of the left. A practice taken straight from Josef Stalin himself.
Paul at Wizbang says Scalia absolutly hits this one out the ballpark.
It really is simple. Why have this document called “The Constitution” if not to use it set some things in stone? If you want something that changes like the latest fashion, don’t waste time writing it down.
The people who want the Constitution to be a “living document” just don’t like what it says.
And yes, they’re idiots.
Email This
Posted by Gribbit on February 14, 2006 7:05 pm
» Filed Under ACLU, Activist Judges, Communism, History, News
Trackback URL:
- Jeremy-Gilby-dot-com » SCOTUS: So Who is Justice Scalia? pinged this post.
- Super Fun Power Hour: Scalia on judicial philosophy
- Public Figures... Beware: Scalia Dismisses "Living Constitution"
- The Right Track » Scalia, My Favorite Justice pinged this post.
- Amber » Blog Archive » Scalia Speaks pinged this post.
- Kim Priestap: The Philosophy of Justice Scalia
- yeah yeah sure sure: Yeah Baby Yeah..
- Conservative Outpost: Daily Summary
- The Uncooperative Blogger: Scalia Scoffs at the Idea of a ‘Living Constitution’
- Sneakeasy's Joint: Justice Scalia Criticizes concept of Living Constitution
Comments
21 Responses to “One Of My Favorite Justices Speaks – Everyone Needs To Listen”
-
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
BLOGGERS FOR
-
-
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Scalia does have a philosophy, it’s called originalism. That’s what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do.
According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.
How does Justice Scalia’s decision in Raich square with his purported “originalism?”
David Duke – Democrat
Senator Duke was a Republican.
Gribbit’s Rule – No valid link… No voice.
When will you people understand that if you don’t have your own forum, you will not be permitted to comment on mine.
No, He was a Democrat:
In 1976, Duke sought a seat in the Louisiana State Senate as a Democrat. In 1978 he left the Klan, and two years later formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People. In 1987, he conducted a direct-mail appeal using the identity and mailing-list of the Forsyth County Defense League, in Georgia, without permission, which League officials described as a fund-raising “scam” (detailed in The Rise of David Duke by Tyler Bridges). In 1988 he ran in the Democratic Party primary for candidate of the President of the United States. After a dismal showing in the Democratic primaries, he appeared on many state ballots as the nominee of the Populist Party, this time receiving approximately 25,000 votes in the 1988 general election.
Thanks Jay, good information.
Three cheers for Justice Scalia!
Let’s hope for one or two more retirements and the opportunity for President Bush to fill them.
This would give us separation of branches of government and put us back on the road to rational justice. But, let’s all be alert that President Bush doesn’t try to sneak in a pro open borders, activist judge — a new Souter.
Thanks for posting this Gribbit, awesome!
From The Washington Post December 21, 1998:
“Duke, a Republican and neo-Nazi sympathizer, declared his plans to run for the seat north of New Orleans almost immediately after Livingston told House colleagues Saturday that he will resign in six months. During the debate over impeachment, and after disclosing marital infidelities, Livingston said he would not assume the House speakership this January, as expected.
“Duke has been a major embarrassment to the GOP since winning a Louisiana statehouse seat in 1989. In 1990, he was the Republican Party’s nominee in an unsuccessful bid to defeat then-incumbent Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.). One year later, Duke gave up his legislative seat to run against and beat Republican Gov. Buddy Roemer in the gubernatorial primary. As the GOP nominee, Duke lost the general election to Democrat Edwin W. Edwards.”
He might also have run as a Democrat, but the Republicans actually nominated him.
I read that moron… But the piece does not go back far enough. Duke when he ran as a republican, he ran as a “Post Reconstruction Republican” something that does not exist.
He ran on policies which are not found in the platform of the Republican Party. And to be honest, the state party should have never endorsed him.
We can go around and around all night but the fact remains when he first entered politics, he was still an active member of the KKK and was a Democrat. He was elected to the House as a Democrat. So you can try pushing a small piece that appeared in a left leaning newspaper which doesn’t tell the entire story all you want. But the facts are facts and they are inescapable.
13 Jul 1950 David Duke born, Tulsa OK.
1967 Joins the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan at the age of 17.
1970 Founds the White Youth Alliance while a student at Louisiana State University. From a 1997 Interview with Duke by Stormfront: “I did picket one time, wore a swastika once in my life. I picketed William Kunstler at Tulane University and that’s the only instance in my life that I ever did that.”
1971 Duke visits his father, an engineer who worked in the State Department, in Laos, for a number of months. He spends some of this time teaching English to Laotian officers. Starting from 1989 onward, Duke refashions this time as actual military missions behind enemy lines in speeches and fundraising materials.
1974 Duke graduates from Louisiana State University with a BA in History. He had taken time off from his college career for various activist work involving Neo-Nazis.
1974 Duke becomes National Director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.
23 Apr 1975 The Witchita Sun quotes David Duke as saying: “White people don’t need a law against rape, but if you fill this room up with your normal black bucks, you would, because niggers are basically primitive animals.” Later, Duke refutes this in a 1997 interview, although only sort of: “Whoever gave you that quote is totally inaccurate… No one is going to find any tape of me using the word nigger or talking in those kinds of terms. Now I certainly will talk frankly and openly about the fact that there is a problem of black rape of white women in this country. The truth is there are two hundred white women raped in America by a black man for every one black woman raped by whites.”
Nov 1978 David Duke publishes the Klan Code of Conduct: “Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.”
17 Nov 1978 The Heritage Florida Jewish News quotes David Duke as proclaiming at a Clearwater Klan rally: “Jewish people have put the interests of race over the interests of the American people… Jews are filled with more hatred and rage for our race, for our heritage, for our blood than perhaps you can imagine.”
1980 David Duke establishes the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), which he describes as a “white rights lobby organization”.
Apr 1982 In an editorial in the NAAWP newsletter, David Duke asks: “Am I an alarmist? Is my vision unreal? All one has to do is look around this globe and see the Third World reality. Are whites holding every one of the nonwhite countries down, or are we in fact pumping billions of dollars into them along with every technological aid that the West can produce? And now the West itself is gradually being enveloped by nonwhite immigration. The exploding numbers of nonwhites are slowly wrapping formerly white nations in a dark human cocoon. Shall a butterfly emerge, or the beast that has haunted the ruins of every great white civilization that submitted to invasion by immigration and racial miscegenation?”
Mar 1985 In an interview, David Duke declares: “What we really want to do is to be left alone. We don’t want Negroes around. We don’t need Negroes around. We’re not asking — you know, we don’t want to have them, you know, for our culture. We simply want our own country and our own society. That’s in no way exploitive at all. We want our own society, our own nation.”
Nov 1989 David Duke elected to Louisana State Legislature.
13 May 1990 In an interview published in the San Francisco Chronicle, David Duke declares: “The Jews are trying to destroy all other cultures — as a survival mechanism — the only Nazi country in the world is Israel.”
19 Dec 1991 After losing the Louisiana gubernatorial election, David Duke exults: “I won my constituency. I won 55% of the white vote.”
Nov 1998 My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding is published by Duke and sold through his website. 736 pages, $25.00.
1 Nov 1999 In filing his 1998 tax return form, David Duke claims he made $18,831.00 when in fact he actually made $65,034.00. Naughty, Naughty. He is convinced of tax evasion in 2002.
Nov 2000 Duke’s home is raided by the FBI while he is in Moscow promoting the Russian version of his book. Duke begins staying in the Ukraine as a guest for the next two years, travelling throughout Europe and Russia and giving lectures and book tours.
18 Dec 2002 Duke pleads guilty to tax evasion and fraud and is sentenced to 15 months in jail and a $10,000 fine. Source
Another source that you might find interesting…
http://www.answers.com/topic/david-duke
Don’t attempt to out research me… I will destroy you on my ability to absorb information at a rapid pace… and here the real key, retain it. You are out classed my simpleton friend. So just run up the white flag and go away.
Is The Washington Post too far left for you? How about Senator Duke’s own website:
“I am currently an elected official of the Republican Party in Louisiana, serving as chairman of Republican Parish Executive Committee in the largest Republican Parish (county) in Louisiana. But, of course, my Republican position is not why the liberal media focuses a lot of hostile attention on me.”
The senator’s republican credentials are well documented.
Ummm… No they aren’t
His Democratic credentials go further back. Have you learned the English language? Do you know how to read? I doubt it. You can cling to the Washington Post all you wish. The only thing that rag is worth is wrapping fish in. And as far as his website, don’t you think that he’d try to cover his failures? Follow the links. I assure you, they are from non-biased sites.
But I see that you picked out one Democrat who supposedly switched sides. He could no more switch sides than a scorpion refrain from stinging. The facts of my piece are facts. And I’ve noticed that you haven’t made a valid argument against any of it. So do yourself a favor… shut the [censor] up and go the [censor] away.
I require that you have your own forum. I’ll be damned if I’m going to allow anyone to come here and crap all over my ideas and thoughts without having exposed their site to us. And in the sense of fairness, comments made on my threads without a link, pro or con to my position, are deleted as a matter of prinicple. If you don’t like it… Too Bad. If you wish to comment, leave a valid link. Without one…. I reserve to right to delete your comments until you do.
I think I will make the case that my mortgate contract is a living document, therefore I can reinterpret it how I want. I think I will stop paying and make my case on that basis. Hmmmm?
Excellent example Ken. After all, the Constitution is a contract between the American people on how we are to be governed. If individuals, or governments can re-interpret contracts then they are no longer valid and binding. The same is true for our Constitution. Going beyond the text of a contract defeats the purpose of the contract itself.
But libs can’t see that. I hope your mortgage is at a fixed low rate. The bubble may burst soon.
I love the living mortgage example…maybe I should bring that up with my bank and see how they feel about it.
It would be another interesting experiment to see how the libs react if they had to face their own tactics. Maybe we should reinterpret the 22nd Amendment so that only bad presidents are restricted to two terms so George Bush can run again in ‘08. The Dems would love that.
Gribbit’s Rule… See above
Gribbit’s Rule… See above.
Originalism
There is a prescribed procedure for amending the Constitution. Judges shouldn’t create penumbras.
“It requires expansion of intended meanings of the Constitution from a liberal perspective. Such as Hugo Black’s views on the 14th Amendment forcing the application of the Bill of Rights onto the states.”
Black was a textualist. And one time Klan member. Who was afraid of going to Alabama because of his decisions supporting civil rights and national power.
You people are hilarious.
“Guess which Supreme Court Justice most often would overturn Congress (the will of the people)? I’ll give you a hint, his opinions would have to stop being in the dissent to actually have an overturn Congress”
You’re associating Congress with the will of the people? Please.
“Oh, and he has a lot of never acting like his interpretation of the constitution doesn’t go to personal believes about society”
If you mean Scalia his interpretation of the Constitution is exactly that of those who wrote it, as opposed to adding words like “endorse”, “privacy”, and subtracting words like “freedom”, and “religion.”
Again, it astonishes me that right wingers wish to strip themselves of the right to privacy. I would think you would be in favor of as much personal liberty as possible. Oh well.
I’m sorry Scalia thinks the constitution is dead, but with Alito and Roberts on the court, he may be right.
“I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the
progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted
him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
– Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810