home

Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution

By Jeralyn, Section Constitution
Posted on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:00:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Justice Anton Scalia, sounding like a Republican politician, reaffirmed his view that the Consitution is not a living, breathing document during a speech in Texas yesterday.

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 criticized the view that the Constitution is "a living document that reflects the values of the time."

Contrast this with the view of the late Justice William Brennan:

"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and present needs."

How does this translate to plain English? According to the article linked above on his speech yesterday,

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.

"Why would you think that nine lawyers for some reason have some insight that the rest of us don't about whether you ought to have a right to abortion, whether you ought to have a right to suicide?" Scalia asked the audience, which included federal and state judges, college students and former president George and Barbara Bush.

Tom Delay is loving it.

"The judges need to be intimidated. They need to uphold the Constitution. (If they don't behave) we're going to go after them in a big way." From the Washington Post [9/14/97] [hat tip Think Progress.]

< Republicans , Democrats and Equal Protection | Microsoft About Face: Will Support Gay Rights Bill >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution | 43 comments (43 topical)
    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:01 PM EST
    Jim, lying as usual: "if they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...the people derive their rights from God, It doesn't say that. It says that their Creator. WHO that Creator was varied by the signer -- --it does NOT say 'the Christian God' gave people their rights (so he could run them through his living salvation maze with the walls of the one true church). It says nothing like that. And it did not MEAN anything like that. There was no great overriding religious commonality in the signers, other than a general membership in the 'Christian' culture of Europe. Many were Deists, who did not believe in your propaganda FOR SURE. The signers did NOT abandon the separation of Church and state in the first words of the Declaration. Referring to equal creation, it is necessary to give some title to the source of that creation, especially in the 18th century. Jehovah isn't mentioned. Rather than a list, this is an argument, referring to the rights of free human beings and free society under a government BASED on preserving our inalienable rights. "and Government derives its rights from the consent of the governed." Really? Then why can't we get a legal and fair election? SOME governments derive their 'rights' from corporations. Corporations, regardless of what the SCOTUS said a hundred years after the founding, are NOT human beings, and therefore cannot endow government with the consent of the governed. Indeed, corporatism wishes a tyranny of corporate consent, not democracy. Not Americanism. Not the Constitution in its orginal meaning FOR SURE.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#23)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    Has anyone noticed how when wingnuts like Scalia decry "judicial tyranny," it's always a case where the Court stops the state from violating someone's rights? My civil liberties are not meant to be at the discretion of a voting populace. They must allow me to live peacefully and pursue my happiness, or they are simply un-American. Abortion rights and gay rights being two prominent examples. 'Hey, you're a tyrant because you won't let us bigots tell these people what they can do with their own bodies.' The real tyrants showed themselves at Shaivo's lemonade stands; they show themselves every time they try to reignite the Scopes Trials or force a 13 year old to have a baby. The real tyrants are the ones who cavalierly sends thousands to the slaughter for political gain and then turn around and lay claim to a culture of life. Scalia's another of those knuckle draggers who makes death and time seem much less ominous.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:57:35 PM EST
    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.
    . . . gosh, that would be a hard thing to figure out sometimes, wouldn't it? Trying to ascertain exactly how framers who lived centuries ago would have intended to resolve 21st century legal problems--that is a toughie. And yet, I strongly suspect (and possibly you do too) that, after much study, research and contemplation, Scalia will find, by some absolutely amazing coincidence, that the framers of the Constitution would have agreed with him in every detail.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:57:39 PM EST
    Excerpted from "Origins of the Specious" :
    Scalia’s standard law-school-lecture shtick is to pose and flex as a juridical “originalist” — someone who, he explains, feels “that judges should adhere to the precise words of the Constitution, and believes that the meaning of those words was locked into place at the time they were written.” Originalism’s virtue, its followers claim, is its resistance to such muddying factors as time, culture, and even attempts to figure out the framers’ intent. Its steep downside, as detractors point out, is its insistence on turning the Constitution into a dead document from which the frozen past controls the evolving future; its tendency to produce ultra-conservative legal opinions where the minority is rarely protected against the majority; and its obliviousness of its own status as an ideology and political strategy.
    [remainder of text deleted, please follow the link to read more. Also, urls must be in html format, we fixed this one but future ones will be deleted because they skew the site layout. Thanks.]

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:57:47 PM EST
    Unfortunately, many of the posters seem to think of the Court as a legislature. It isn't. The Constitution is silent on a lot of things. When the Court rules on issues with no constitutional basis, it has no more authority or legitimacy than the first five people I meet walking down the street.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    Ed, and the voice of the winger cynic. It's all about personal preference and greed -- there are no ideals. Since there are no ideals, lying to get what you want is just the way it is done. It invalidates getting the power, Ed. There are, according to the Bush v. Gore author, no amendments, no changes in the law or its concept over time. States still select presidents, and if you don't like it, then try moving to any of the 50 states that no longer choose the president by selection! That'll teach you. Dred Scalia, and his band of traitors.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    Puh-leeeeze Scalia stopped breathing himself, a long, long time ago, Luke... If the Constitution doesn't breathe, what are all those pesky little amendment hanging from it like Chad? Mr. Justice?

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    To the contrary. Those stirring words of Brennan simply show a willingness to make things up as the Court goes along. Read the article referenced-why are the dictates of the Court preferable to that of a representative democracy. I don't vote for them. You would not vote for Scalia. Yet, the constitutional standard of Brennan is "five votes".

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    Someone has to decide which laws are just and which ones aren't constitutional. Old Conservatives like Scalia who love to kick up a fuss and act as if the Constitution is dead every time there's a decision with which they disagree should be treated like the people they've helped to oppress for all of America's history...

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    ...and by that, Blaghdaddy means, the whip, the scaffold, the mutilations, the police dogs, the firehoses, the internment camps... Hey, if the Constitution said it was O.K. before we "changed it," Blaghdaddy knows a few people in need of Constitutional Reform...

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    You just gave away your preference for a judicial dictatorship. The Court should decide which laws are just? That is not its job. Why are the Court's opinions on whether a law is just relevant? The justices certainly aren't elected/they do not represent anyone. Their opinion on the "rightness" of a law goes way beyond their authority.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    what is the court there 4 then?

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    Not to impose their dictates or views. That is not what constitutional analysis is. Whether a judge disagrees with a law is irrelevant. Apparently though, in your dimension, five votes makes something just. Do you truly believe that? If that is the case, they should be elected so that they do reflect society. Just as apparently, five votes in favor of slavery automatically makes it just.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#18)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    Ed Beckmann, I think my mind is going!...I am so happy i am old, who wants to be alive in the next 40 years, if Scalia is setting the old stage for total dismantling of this nation i don't think people see it don't,like that, because the mass-political-propaganda will play so many games on people, people will not understand it and just say yes to total poltical corruption and in the end guys like scalia will have done his job for the real powers.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#1)
    by Rich on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    A bizarre quote and an even more bizarre set of thoughts. Why is he on the Court if he doesn't think having 9 lawyers use the constitution to make decisions or for them to make decisions at all.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    How about non-property owners and women's voting rights? Black folks? Back to 3/4 status. Only question - will we use the "brown bag" test or the "one drop of the tar brush" test?

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    When the constitution was adopted, the right to bear arms meant muzzleloaders. Maybe that interpretation isn't all that bad.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#4)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    Let me see? "help", the fact is the boys in the bush business need you to think that our constitution is dead, but in fact the boys want it dead and will tell you anything to you to make it dead, our rights and himan rights our lives will in the end be contorlled by propaganda that will make what i call the new jew, and yes our nation is dead, but what do you want to do? walk into the death camps like millions of jews did, or fight for your life and a new day of justice against total evil? I can see it now! bush and fox and bin laden rewriting our bill of rights, constitution, it will be called Revise and correct, but in fact it will be revise and corrupt, all of our rights, and as far as the values of the day goes, what a joke that is, do any of you non americans and that is most, if not all of you understand why we had a civil war? how many blacks and hispanic and others have died for the rights of other people? tell me my little worlds people. the bill of rights will always stand to stop total evil, but the pigs want it dead. long live the ideals of 1776. one world one hell.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#5)
    by Rick B on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    OK. So Brennen sees the Constitution as a set of principles and Scalia sees it as a set of shackles. Why am I not surprised? I wonder what Scalia see as the role of the Common Law in Constitutional issues? Do Constitutional definitions grow and change as the language, the laws and the realities to which law is applied differ from those in the past? Probably not. God gave Scalia all the answers in the Bible and the Constitution, and he is the high Priest of the Constitution. Why should he accept any change? Legal fundamentalism, and Scalia is the prophet. I would expect nothing less from a member of Opus Dei.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    Fred You are so right on point. The repigs are not interested in Democracy they want power. They want a Govt for business by business and of business! If they have to use the Amerikan Taliban storm troopers to grab total power, so be it.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#7)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    This is like the cop in Casablanca being "shocked, shocked" that there's gambling going on. Whoa, better hide from all the politics.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    I like Brennan's view...
    but in the adaptability of its great principles
    I fear our leaders don't concern themselves with the great principles expressed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights anymore, too inconvenient.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    The living breathing constitution is admired by one and all only if the decisions are going in their direction. If it means only what 5 votes say, it means nothing and, when your ox is gored, I really doubt you will be glorying in the quote.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    So, Ed... I take it that you're in favor of: 1) overturning environmental protections, safety regulations to ensure workers' health and safety, and keep the playing field tilted against vulnerable segments of our population (like the disabled)? Well, for heaven's sake, just come on out and say so! But please don't pretend it has anything to do with concerns about "judicial dictatorship." The current Supreme Court, under Rehnquist, has overturned numerous laws passed by Congress.
    Since Judge Ginsburg introduced the term “Constitution in Exile” into the constitutional lexicon, the Rehnquist court has struck down in whole or part more than 33 federal laws. In contrast, during its first 70 years, the Court invalidated only two acts of congress. People for the American Way maintains, “[u]sing what amounts to a judicial veto, the [Rehnquist] Court has been overturning acts of Congress at an accelerated rate 6.5 times faster than during the first 200 years [of the constitution].” Thomas Keck, Assistant Professor of Political Science in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, maintains that this unprecedented rate has made the Rehnquist Court “the most activist Supreme Court in history.” The Rehnquist Court has invalidated popular bi-partisan acts of congress including the Violence Against Women Act, the Gun-Free School Zones Act, the Brady Bill, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. In February of 2000, the libertarian CATO institute declared, "They're Back: The Rehnquist Court is returning to constitutional principles that the New Deal Court had simply pushed aside."
    Now, I don't know exactly WHY all this sounds appealing to you, but for some reason it does. But it's more a case of whose worldview is going to prevail, than a true argument over what the Founders intended. (Does this mean I can never remodel my 80-year-old bathroom?) I'll just ask you to remember two data points: 1) this quote from Scalia (about the Ten Commandments monument fracas): "It's a symbol of the fact that government comes — derives its authority from God. And that is, it seems to me, an appropriate symbol to be on State grounds." Need I point out that this is his OPINION? 2) Our country may have been founded by Christians, but they were running away from OTHER Christians who wouldn't let them live freely according to their consciences. Take from that what you will.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#20)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    Just as apparently, five votes in favor of slavery automatically makes it just.
    No, five votes in favor of slavery would make it legal, not just. The function of the court has never been to decide what is just. It's function is to decide what is legal. And in all decisions, the court gives priority to the Constitution over new legislation.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    why don't we talk about what he's really saying? the constitution is dead. he wants to bury it.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#22)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    webmacher - I invite your attention to paragraph two, second line. Now, if they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, it occurs to me that Scalia is correct. The people derive their rights from God, and Government derives its rights from the consent of the governed. Ed - "Not to impose their dictates or views." Very well said.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#28)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    PIL - You potty mouth, what do you think a "Creator" is? No one said it meant "my God," or "your God," but a "divine being." Check your dictionary. Note what the capitol "C" in Creator means. "Date: 13th century : one that creates usually by bringing something new or original into being; especially capitalized : GOD " Now I take time to explain this because it is a very important point. Because our unalienable rights - "among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - come from a divine being, a Creator, God, then they can not be taken away by man, or government. And a government must then derive its rights from the consent of the people. Paul. That is so absoloutely basic that if you do not understand this point, your political philsophy will remained flawed, and you will be samll fish ready to be sucked into the maw of those who do not believe in democracy. BTW - PIL, what do you expect to accomplish in your lifetime if you call everyone you disagree with, liars? Think about it.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    Don't know about you Jim, but my "Creator" (with a capital C) was my mom (with a little help from dad). They are the ones who endowed me with life, and hence, the rights enumerated in the constitution. Don't recall ever meeting this "God" fellow you keep going on about.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    If you wonder if or why the Dems and moderate republicans should stand off the Bush judge appointments, consider the possibility of one more justice like Scalia. You don't really miss your civil liberties til they are gone.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#31)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    Adedpt - And you probably won't meet him...until later. ;-)

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    And if I do meet her, I'm sure she will gladly accept my earthly skepticism in the face of an overwhelming lack of scientific evidence. ;-)

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#33)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    If the constitution isn't a living document, then Scalia better start practicing the kind of Quaker Deism that the founding fathers predominantly believed in. Read the Jefferson Bible, Antonin, if you want to see what THE founding father thought of blind fundamentalism to the "word" of God. Just amazing how many people think things, even the Bible, just fell out of the sky and weren't revised, rewritten, rethought, redacted, edited, etc.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    "Posted by Jim: "what do you think a "Creator" is? No one said it meant "my God," or "your God," but a "divine being." Check your dictionary. Note what the capitol "C" in Creator means." Let's turn to a founder named Thomas Jefferson, see what he says. After all -- HE WROTE IT: "We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and inalienables," Oops. No 'Creator' there until the more religious signers, like the Puritan John Adams, shoehorned it into the text. It is certainly NOT there to begin with. The founder who wrote it, who clearly was one of the top four or five founders, didn't put a Creator anywhere in it. There is mention of Christianity, though: "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. this piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain." Think about 'rendition,' and then understand how hypocritical and 'piratical' your Christian king of the US(PNAC) really is. 'Infidel powers' -- gee, is he saying that the claim of being Christian is based on ACTION? I think maybe he is, Jim. Ye shall know them by their fruits, which in this case are splattered all over the shattered buildings of Fallujah.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#35)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    PIL - You take a clear statement and try to change the meaning by backing into what you think the writer meant. Now that is typical leftist re-writing of history. And quit hyperventilating over Fallujah. It will only serve to raise your blood pressure. BTW - We should have done what we did 6 months before we did it. Adept - You two can work out the details. I'll just try and keep out of the way. You know, burning bushes, kknocking downn city walls, raining blood, parting waters and all that. dadler - The Constitution provided a method to change it. "Amendments" Now I know that isn't fast enough to suit you folks, and I know that the Left has become unused to having to make their case, but if I were the Left, I'd certainly start practicing. What with all the elections you're losing.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Posted by Jim: " You take a clear statement and try to change the meaning by backing into what you think the writer meant." The reverse. YOU are trying to say what the writer meant, and I have proven to you, by referring to that writer's actual words (ie, evidence) that he did NOT mean Creator, or he would have written it. The word was added later, over his objections. "Now that is typical leftist re-writing of history." You lie, yet again, Jim. What kind of future do you and your lies have? "And quit hyperventilating over Fallujah. It will only serve to raise your blood pressure. BTW - We should have done what we did 6 months before we did it." Another fine racist comment from you, Jim. Love the patented false concern, the patented view that you get to violate all our laws and treaties whenever you feel like it, because in your mind you think you're right. No, Jim -- that's why we HAVE laws. And your boy was just caught with his pants down. The smoking gun has been procured, and all we need is a little JUSTICE, and he will be sitting behind bars. Which won't make the people of Fallujah whole, but it will restore some of the credibility of the US legal system. Which in fact is a primary basis of our national security.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#37)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    PIL - Your problem is that you want to argue about Jefferson because you think it supports you. But as you noted, he wrote a great deal of it, but others inserted words into it. And guess what, PIL. They then signed it and called it the Constitution. So, since our government is based on that, shall we try and stick to what the Constitution says? And you know what? It says, Creator. Aint it hell when facts get in the way of a good rant?

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#38)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    jim, thanks for informing me about those amendments. never woulda known. come on. if interpreting language weren't a problem, contract law wouldn't exist. the constitution is a contract with the american people, and the language in it constantly being scrutinized in light of an always changing society. and you failed entirely to address my "creator" point -- which is, if you are going to interpret the "literal meaning" of the document as the founders intended, then you better alter your perception of the divine. the men most responsible for that document, for the founding of this nation, were not evangelicals. they were products of the enlightenment, rationalists, deists much closer to agnosticism than 21st century american absolutist christianity -- the kind bush and scalia practice. and yet, all those founders were, for the most part, slave owners and discriminators of the highest order. so there's the real rub. the difficult ironies of the past (and present). scalia doesn't apparently think their are any, that god controls all, and that he's just biding his time unitl heaven and pronouncing judgement from his mountain. he, and those on his side rhetorically, want to pedestal the founding father's "intent" without having to consider them as people of an utterly differnt time and place, as foreign to us as television would be to them.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    PPJ, Here's a good "Deism" site, with good basic info about it, its belief among the founders, etc.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#40)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    lets try that again: http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    Posted by Jim: "But as you noted, he wrote a great deal of it, but others inserted words into it." Which demonstrates that Jefferson, one of the top four or five signers, didn't agree with your idea that he MEANT a Creator. No, he didn't. Though Adams capitalized the word, over Jefferson's objections, that didn't change what Jefferson meant when he wrote those words. So the 'signers' DID NOT share the same concept of that word. You agree, so your point was invalid. "And guess what, PIL. They then signed it and called it the Constitution." Wow, Jim, that's hilarious. We're talking about the Declaration of Independence. No wonder you are so confused.

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#42)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    dadler - I think it is funny that people who claim to not use original intent spend hours telling me what the founders intent was. ;-) PIL - Don't be a dummy. Try to understand. It doesn't make any difference. THEY SIGNED WHAT THEY SIGNED, NOT WHAT JEFFERSON WANTED, OR ADAMS, OR WHOEVER. And yes, I misspoke when I said constitution. But there is no doubt that the Declaration is a definitive document for our country. Kapish?

    Re: Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution (none / 0) (#43)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    Jim, Thanks for ignoring the main point of our little back-and-forth here, which was Deism, "the creator", and the origin of the founder's intent. I was only offering you information to counter your largely simple-minded, ahistorical take on "the creator" our founders mentioned. And to demonstrate that the intent of their faith, and their words about faith in the document, do not line up with your belief in god or much of mainstream christianity's belief. They were to Christianity what Jesus was to Judaism -- skeptical and forward looking; not doubtless and backward facing. Original intent is inseparable from original context, which often is at great odds with today's context. You don't seem to want any context at all by which to determine intent or interpretation; simply a document that can somehow be objectively separated from times and conditions of it's origination, much like people who think the Bible fell out of the sky one day, and who have absolutely no clue about it's history, revision, redaction, the human power games that decided what books would get in, and on and on.

    Scalia: There Is No Breathing Constitution | 43 comments (43 topical)