Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Politics
Scalia at Stetson praises original intent view of Constitution
By CHRIS TISCH
Published April 5, 2007
GULFPORT - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledges so-called constitutional originalists like him are the minority. But he thinks the group is growing. In a speech to students and faculty members at Stetson University College of Law Wednesday, Scalia criticized those who believe the U.S. Constitution is a living document that can be re-interpreted over time. "The Constitution is not a living organism for Pete's sake," an often witty Scalia told an audience of several hundred people. "It's a legal document. Referring to the chief justice who wrote the landmark Marbury vs. Madison opinion in 1803, Scalia said, "If you told John Marshall that the Constitution morphed ... he would be unbelieving." Scalia said we should rely on the bare text of the Constitution and its intent when written rather than expect the justices on the high court to breathe their opinions into the document. "If you want to be governed by an aristocracy, there are better aristocracies than nine lawyers," he said. Scalia applied that thinking to the death penalty, which has been derailed in Florida and other states because of concerns about the constitutionality of lethal injection. Scalia said the Founding Fathers did not consider death sentences to be unconstitutional. "The death penalty was not considered cruel and unusual punishment," he said. "There's no doubt about it. "Now it may be a very bad idea," he added. "And if the people want to change it, nothing in the Constitution requires that you have the death penalty. But that's quite a different question from whether your Supreme Court ... can decide for the whole country that the death penalty is no longer permitted." The conservative justice, appointed by President Ronald Reagan and approved by a 98-0 vote in the Senate, said he also believes politics has infected the confirmation process too much: "I wouldn't get 60 votes today."
[Last modified April 5, 2007, 01:29:10]
Share your thoughts on this story
Comments on this article
|
by George
|
04/11/07 05:10 PM
|
|
The founders expected all branches to respond to history-privacy and even judicial review aren't written in the Constitution. Judges who claim all questions are answered in the text are using their own prejudices, just like judges who admit otherwise
|
|
by Leo
|
04/07/07 12:57 PM
|
|
The Constitution is a legal document where the people gave certain authority to the government. The government can't legally reinterpet their authorization. The people can amend the constitution by voting for change.
|
|
by Tim
|
04/07/07 12:44 PM
|
|
Scalia is right that the only way to rationally interpret the Constitution is to look at what was intended when it was written. Those who whine that that's too restrictive fail to understand one thing: That's why we have the amendment process.
|
|
by Joseph
|
04/07/07 12:38 PM
|
|
Scalia is a great American.....He doesn't call for 'originalism' (divination of the minds of the constitution's writers) as he does for plain reading and to not read into it what is not there. To do otherwise is true tryanny.
|
|
by Prince Roy
|
04/06/07 04:38 AM
|
|
Scalia is hogwash. He is no strict constructionist/origninalist but injects his own opinions in the document whenever it suits his purposes.
|
|
by Ed
|
04/05/07 06:45 PM
|
|
He wouldn't get 50.
|
|
by Kyle
|
04/05/07 03:08 PM
|
|
You sound ignorant in your opinion. If the justices were to create law, you would be whining that they shouldnt do that and you were not represented in that decision. Hence, democracy and our legislature on both the federal and state level.
|
|
by Kyle
|
04/05/07 03:06 PM
|
|
Issywise - I think you have Scalia's intent mistaken. All he says is that the Constitution does not give him or any of the other 8 justices the power to create law. He looks to the text and intent of the framers in deciding constitutional issues.
|
|
by Joe
|
04/05/07 12:22 PM
|
|
If the Constitution is "living" and "evolving," then it is meaningless, it only reflects the agenda of every judge who has a constitutional case, and we don't need it. Just let each judge make it up as they go along.
|
|
by Lee
|
04/05/07 11:06 AM
|
|
60 votes? Hah! He wouldn't make it to the floor.
|
|
by Allison
|
04/05/07 09:33 AM
|
|
Originalists such as Justice Scalia are the only ones who are consistent and correct in their rulings, because they don't try to make the Constitution speak to things on which it remains silent. The Founders were more foresighted than people think.
|
|
by IssyWise
|
04/05/07 08:18 AM
|
|
The originalists look back to divine what people in 1789 would have thought about modern issues then conclude that the founders agree completely with their own prejudices. If it isn't outright fraud, its self deception.
|
|
by IssyWise
|
04/05/07 08:13 AM
|
|
Scalia thinks the founders established two branches of government that would respond to the times (legislative and Executive), but a third that was tied to 1789, then gave protection of individual right to the branch tied to the distant past. Naw.
|
|
by David
|
04/05/07 06:49 AM
|
|
If he could he would put the US back into hands of England-If Regan had not died the country would be "for rich-white only"- Great day when SCALIA leaves the court!! soon 2.
|
|
News
Fifty years ago, they were screwed-up kids sent to the Florida School for Boys to be straightened out. But now they are screwed-up men, scarred by the whippings they endured. Read the story and see a video and portrait gallery.
Print
Email story
Comment
Email editor
