Quote:
Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek
I have the greatest respect for Justice Antonin Scalia; however I must respectfully disagree with his premise that the Constitution “is dead.” To the contrary, I think that it was the “original intent” of the framers of the Constitution that it be a living document as attested by the twenty-seven amendments since its adoption; which reflects their wisdom and foresight in providing for such change. Likewise, the fact that people may disagree with the court’s interpretation of some of its provisions is not a sufficient basis for adopting a regressive approach to the law. As Alice pointed out, “[T]he question is . . .whether you can make words mean so many different things”; and to say that the Constitution means what the founding fathers intended it to mean is, like Humpty Dumpty, merely to beg the question.
Professor Tribe once told me that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says. I thought he was joking at the time; but after the decision of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, I have come to think that he meant it.
|
You are not understanding what Scalia is talking about. The amendment process is in the Constitution, as such it is the Constitutional way to change the Constitution. Scalia has no issue with changes that occur this way. What Scalia is talking about is current attempts to apply different definitions to words in the Constitution in order to affect a change in law.
So what Scalia is saying is that the Constitution means something specific, it is a set of fixed statements. It is not something that changes meaning with every change in public fancy. It prevents the justices from being able to trump the collective wisdom of the founders, Americans since that date, all the Congresses and the 225 years of jurisprudence.
If people want to change the Constitution, fine, do an amendment; don’t try to stack five members on the Supreme Court to change it for you.
Oh, and shut up about Bush vs Gore, SEVEN justices agreed that the FSC had acted wrong. Two wanted to send it back to them again to get them to get it right (i.e. allow Bush's win to stand), however seven agreed with the decision. Besides every rational recount shows that Bush won.