Justice Scalia (quote) The Constitution is Dead

www.youtube.com...

I dont know what to say.. thats a first...
the spin is good, I must admit...

He's right, because a maturing society is dumber and needs more security and less liberty.

God, where do they drag people like this up? Horrifying.

Peace

reply to post by BornPatriot


I can't see youtube yet, I am at work. What is the context? Is he saying this as part of a ruling, or some kind of bad joke?

He is probably right about it being dead, and his court is accessory to the murder of it!!

reply to post by getreadyalready


its basically, how do you apply a 200 year document to modern way of life.

Originally posted by BornPatriot
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

its basically, how do you apply a 200 year document to modern way of life.

I have heard that argument before, but not from such an educated person!

The constitution was written on ideals. How do ideals change in 200 years? Plus, 200 years is a pretty short time on the scale of dynasties. Technology changes, but rights and morals and ideals don't need to.

I will look at Constitution paragraph by paragraph and see if there is anything that can't be applied to today's world. It may take me a while.

I don't know what to say.

Except maybe that I would have thought, when the collective oaths of office of all the 'political' heroes of our country all include such phrases as '... to defend the constitution...' one would have rightly been convinced that they had made it their professional and personal mission to actually keep it alive...,

rather than abandon it to the destructive corrosion of the very external threats they were sworn to oppose.

I have given it much thought, and how they got around the constitution is using third parties.. you see an agreement is between two people... Plantiff and Defendant... when you introduce third parties like Insurance Companies... banks things like that, agreements between two end up being Two against One... and the agreements you cant change has given away your rights to other people, corporations etc... thats why you have to sign a disclosure that you are electing to this transaction with your concent... they just kept elaborating it to the point your a non-constitutionally protected is how I see it... and this is very complex and this is a brief summary of the crox of the problem... they lawyered you out of your country in essence

Well, I am up to Article VI so far, and I have read everything word by word, and there is absolutely nothing that would be sensitive to 200 years of history or technological advancement!

The Constitution is well-written and well thought out. If the highest court in the land cannot interpret such a simple, plain-spoken document, then we need to change the court, NOT the document!!

[edit on 5-8-2009 by getreadyalready]

What he is referring to in this video, is that the liberal activist judges have come up with the theory that the constitution is a living document, and because of that the interpretation of the document will change from year to year.

What Scalia is saying is the constitution is a law, and just like any other law it means the same thing when it was written whether it is 2 days from it being enacted or 100 years from it being enacted, it still means what it says.

Therefore when he says the constitution is dead he is saying it means the same thing today as it meant 243 years ago.

reply to post by Maxmars


this issue is much simpler.... you see when Congress Ratified the UN Charter it became the surpreme law, and Americans were none the wiser... because of the Oath.
The law is clear, The Constitution is Clear, Congress Ratified a Treaty and it take presedence over our Constitution... I say repeal the UN Charter... tell Europe to kiss our asses. andlets get back to being a great nation of laws and do all we can for our nation... instead of this continued destruction of the finest nation on earth.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

www.usconstitution.net...

Ah ha! I finally found a controversial point. (IMO) Amendment 12 has the statement above. Now this sounds fair, and it has never happened as far as I am aware, but if we got a good 3rd party candidate, and no president carried a majority of votes, then the House of Representatives gets to choose the president! I bet that would be a nightmare!

reply to post by getreadyalready


check out how they fixed that issue... with computers....
Hacking Democracy - video on google.

Okay, so a living document, written and meant to be a way to protect American citizens from a tyrannical Government, is now dead?

So, what he's saying, is either the Government murdered the document, or he knows more than the Founding Fathers, and just because it was written in the past is no reason to declare it dead, I'm sorry.

You know, maybe the reason everyone is trying to make all this squall over the Constitution is not just because they want to bypass it, like they constantly do, but maybe it is because they want to write a new one.

Just you watch out, if they write a new United States Constitution, it will be full of laws that will make almost everything you and I care for illegal, and the ignorant Americans who take it for granted will be crying in their milk next.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by getreadyalready

But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Amendment 14 !
This must be how we can escape our debts and save our children!

So, we have been "enslaved" by debt and this entire "bailout" is aiding an insurrection by the corporations in an economic coup of the Federal Govt!

Therefore, the debts are illegal and void! We need a short rebellion and then we can declare all these debts and obligations void as per this amendment!

reply to post by BornPatriot


He's right, it is dead. It's as dead as Aunt Emma. What he means is that the document doesn't change, but that proponents of the 'living constitution' make efforts to change it's meaning for activist reasons. It's like digging up Aunt Emma in order to change her burial clothes so they are more modern, perhaps her coffin is thought to be out of date, etc...

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I have to agree with you, you can not ask someone to do the right thing for the wrong reason. and thats what we are doing to our sons and daughters, they take a oath to the constitution and its not recogonized or validated by the government in which is being served... interesting wrinkle -- thanks...

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
What Scalia is saying is the constitution is a law, and just like any other law it means the same thing when it was written whether it is 2 days from it being enacted or 100 years from it being enacted, it still means what it says.

Therefore when he says the constitution is dead he is saying it means the same thing today as it meant 243 years ago.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who caught what he was saying.


I don't doubt that there is a slow and methodical movement on both sides to erode the foundations of our rights but Scalia didn't say "the constitution is dead, line up for your ID chips to my right." He said the constitution is not the changing malleable document some believe it to be.

Originally posted by eNumbra

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
What Scalia is saying is the constitution is a law, and just like any other law it means the same thing when it was written whether it is 2 days from it being enacted or 100 years from it being enacted, it still means what it says.

Therefore when he says the constitution is dead he is saying it means the same thing today as it meant 243 years ago.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who caught what he was saying.


I don't doubt that there is a slow and methodical movement on both sides to erode the foundations of our rights but Scalia didn't say "the constitution is dead, line up for your ID chips to my right." He said the constitution is not the changing malleable document some believe it to be.

We have a BINGO and throw in a Double Yatzee for you as well.

Anyone that takes it differently is not listening...............................

I will see the day that Americans learn their own Constitution and act on it.
Take back the country from those we were warned about.

OP, you should state the fact that the he said the Constitution is not a living
document, instead of it's dead. Two different meanings.
What he said, and what he explained are 180's of each other.