Welcome to PatsFans.com

Antonin Scalia: The United States Constitution is “Dead”

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by NEPatriot, Jun 12, 2009.

  1. NEPatriot

    NEPatriot Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,836
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    The Greenroom Forum Archive Antonin Scalia: The United States Constitution is “Dead”



    He also points some good examples.
    It's BS to hear a gay guy mentioning abut his 'constitution' rights. What we see nowsday is we CHANGE the US constitution to fit our needs AS WE GO.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2009
  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,006
    Likes Received:
    322
    Ratings:
    +597 / 24 / -19

    There are those like Scalia who seem to believe that our Constitution was written to address the needs of our nation for eternity, and there are those who believe that our founders could not have possibly understood the kinds of changes that would take place as our nation matured and evolved. Our founders never expected interracial marriage, schools and jobs with people of color working side by side, voting rights for women, gays having a voice in society, multinational corporations having the power to manipulate our economy, foreign countries owning much of our debt, etc. Scalia and his ilk like to interpret the Constitution as if our society was designed to serve the interests of the few, but that has changed over time. Even the conservatives are activist, though, suh as controlling states with regard to affirmative action, unionization, and discrimination laws, but conservatives like that kind of activism, they just don't call it that.
     
  3. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,457
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +916 / 7 / -3

    He is awesome in what he says. He's exactly correct. The law, is the law. He's especially correct about abortion. Abortion should be a state issue, decided by the people.
     
  4. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,268
    Likes Received:
    330
    Ratings:
    +829 / 27 / -33


    Do not disagree, but there is also the principal of "stare decisis".. which is based in english law, that essentially states that existing decisions should not be changed..

     
  5. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    It's interesting then...

    Where was Scalia's interpretation of the Constitution in Gore v. Bush, or U.S. v. Cheney?

    "here's our ruling, ... unique to this case, and never again"...
     
  6. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    'nuff ced.

    I think TJ would tell Scalia to go soak his head.
     
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,457
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +916 / 7 / -3

    That's Thomas Jefferson's take, what about Alexander Hamilton's? James Madisons? How about Adam's, Washington, Burr, etc.? Furthermore, Scalia's point about abortion is exactly correct. I'm not sure you're going to find abortion in the Constitution, nor are you going to find TJ's opinion on it.

    BTW, I think TJ would tell just about everyone involved in gubmit, to go kill themselves, if he saw what this country has become over the last 30+ years.
     
  8. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,625
    Likes Received:
    175
    Ratings:
    +471 / 13 / -14


    If that were the case there would be no Roe v Wade abortion 'right', and Obama wouldn't have been able to overturn 200+ years of bankruptcy law to benefit the UAW.

    Scalia is exactly right.
     
  9. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,268
    Likes Received:
    330
    Ratings:
    +829 / 27 / -33

    Abortion was not previously decided by the supreme court, when it did the principal of "stare decisis" takes effect...

    Not sure if bankruptcy law was ever decided by the Supreme Court, if you know a case kindly cite it..

    Spin, spin, spin all you want but you do not know your ass from your elbow when you get involved with law.. so move on there is nothing for you here.
     
  10. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,746
    Likes Received:
    279
    Ratings:
    +1,152 / 5 / -10

    Don't worry about the constitution, Obama and his gang will use it "to destroy it"
     
  11. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,832
    Likes Received:
    145
    Ratings:
    +481 / 11 / -7

    #91 Jersey

    But TJ was the "father of the constitution" RW, i think his opinion carries more wieght.
     
  12. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Ya know what else you won't find?

    Driver's Licenses, there's nary a peep about giving them out or revoking them. So if Mr Drunkeverynight mows down your family after his 8th OUI conviction what would you do if the state said 'Sorry Mr World, we'd take his license if only the Constitution said we could.'

    Don't bother answering, you'd ***** about useless politicians.
     
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,457
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +916 / 7 / -3

    I don't think so. The document was a culmination of opinions and idea's from a vast array of different people. The Constitution stands alone. It's not a Constitution, with a little emphasis given to the opinion of Mr X, and little less to Mr. Z, and we all pitty the fool who don't listen to Mr. T, grrrrrr :mad: Look, I've read plenty of books about the founding fathers, and the revolutionary era. I know that Jefferson felt different generations would deal with the questions of their time, as they would need to. What can't be said, or known, is the extent to which he felt that. I'm not sure TJ could ever have understood such issues as say illegal wire tapping, or abortion.

    I'd like to add that TJ was a firm believer in states rights. He believed, contrary to Alexander Hamilton for example, that the central, or federal gubmit, should have limited powers, with states deciding their own way the majority of the time. So with that in mind, I think TJ would likely be on the side of Scalia here, in believing that abortion's legality should be determined by the individual states. When reading about the different positions, and ideologies of the FF's, I found myself agreeing, and disagreeing, with virtually all of them. It's quite fascinating to read about them, because you see how different they were to today's pols, or parties. They weren't sellouts. They were very principled individuals, who had a true purpose behind their beliefs. Today it's all BS, lining pockets, behavior changing, war mongering, MIC, hand out, etc driven. It's sad really.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2009
  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,457
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +916 / 7 / -3

    Drivers licenses are issued by states, and not the federal gubmit. Furthermore a drivers license doesn't involve the life of a child being terminated. If anything, you're making my point, because the state determines the rules when issuing a license. So shouldn't it be states that determine the rules with abortion? If the people of Massachusetts reach a point where they want restrictions put on drivers, they can attempt to put a question on the ballot (hahaha, too bad we live in Crapachusetts where the people don't matter though), and do that. There is no such ballot question when some judge imposes his own beliefs onto the populace, with the constitution used as toilet paper during the process.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2009
  15. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Its the life of a Fetus RW, according to our laws. I know you love to pull at people's heartstrings to win your arguments but the law is clear. A person is defined as one who can live outside the womb and aborting babies that can live outside the womb is against the law.

    Why shouldn't the state be able to ignore that law? The same reason the state of Massachusetts can't treat Yankee fans as less than persons.
     
  16. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,457
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +916 / 7 / -3

    I'm not here to argue what is, or isn't a fetus. Nor am I here to debate abortion. That would get us nowhere. I'm here to point out that the state's should determine the issue, and not some SC justices, with questionable constitutional interpretation.
     
  17. fleabassist1

    fleabassist1 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,010
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    But isn't that what the constitution was originally designed for? To adapt and move with our country - so that it adapts as we adapt? If not, then what are amendments for?

    I can agree that our constitutions sh1t on every day - but I don't think a gay guy wanting gay marriage is such.
     
  18. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,200
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Ratings:
    +3,007 / 28 / -22

    #75 Jersey

    Yeah, especially since Presidents can't own 100+ slaves anymore.
     
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,457
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +916 / 7 / -3

    Your point being?
     
  20. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,625
    Likes Received:
    175
    Ratings:
    +471 / 13 / -14



    The law was also clear that slaves were property, they law was wrong then too. were property
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>