Welcome to Gaia! ::

well a living document is often a document that is able to be edited as need be. While what Scalia said could be interpreted as treasonous (for no justice should sit on that court who opposes the constitution), it could also mean the constitution is written in stone.

Naturally, there are those who would argue that Scalia didn't mean it was written in stone, and they meant that it doesn't matter. Obviously, only a suicidal public official would say something like that, because they would know some crazy mofo from Alabama would probably assassinate them.
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
He was pretty clearly referring to the idea that the Constitution comes to mean different things over time, as social standards change. He's one of the die-hard opponents of that concept, preferring to rely on th' meanings the words would have had in 1789 when ratified. (Or later, in the case of amendments, of course.)

Not to say that there's no merit in that idea, but Scalia is still a dipshit.
Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

Wendigo
The New Wineskin
Ammo Amy
Maybe write Constitution II: The Next Document RevelationElectric BoogalooThe Wrath of Khan?


I fixed it.
No, you didn't.
This is now a Star Trek thread.
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Ban
Wendigo
The New Wineskin
Ammo Amy
Maybe write Constitution II: The Next Document RevelationElectric BoogalooThe Wrath of Khan?


I fixed it.
No, you didn't.
This is now a Star Trek thread.


THIS IS CETI ALPHA FIVE
Wendigo
He was pretty clearly referring to the idea that the Constitution comes to mean different things over time, as social standards change. He's one of the die-hard opponents of that concept, preferring to rely on th' meanings the words would have had in 1789 when ratified. (Or later, in the case of amendments, of course.)

Not to say that there's no merit in that idea, but Scalia is still a dipshit.


If that were the case, then the 2nd Amendment would mean weapons at the time it was written, which means people can have all the muzzle-loading muskets and pistols, balls, & gunpowder they wish to have, and nothing newer. Those were the guns the Founding Fathers envisioned at the time of the writing. The only real argument would be over ownership of front-loading cast-iron canons.

The thing is, Scalia is two-faced about his interpretations. In the case of weapons, since there is no mention of what kind, all weapons are OK. In the case of Gay rights, there is no mention of it, so it should be banned. The only consistency Scalia has is the interests of his party and their backers.
Ammo Amy
Wendigo
He was pretty clearly referring to the idea that the Constitution comes to mean different things over time, as social standards change. He's one of the die-hard opponents of that concept, preferring to rely on th' meanings the words would have had in 1789 when ratified. (Or later, in the case of amendments, of course.)

Not to say that there's no merit in that idea, but Scalia is still a dipshit.


If that were the case, then the 2nd Amendment would mean weapons at the time it was written, which means people can have all the muzzle-loading muskets and pistols, balls, & gunpowder they wish to have, and nothing newer. Those were the guns the Founding Fathers envisioned at the time of the writing. The only real argument would be over ownership of front-loading cast-iron canons.

The thing is, Scalia is two-faced about his interpretations. In the case of weapons, since there is no mention of what kind, all weapons are OK. In the case of Gay rights, there is no mention of it, so it should be banned. The only consistency Scalia has is the interests of his party and their backers.


I believe there to be a misunderstanding on where Scalia stands. First, he's already acknowledged that the Second Amendment, like any other amendment, is limited in scope. Scalia is a strict constitutionalist, but not all of the time. He's very Blackstonian in his attempt, which was really out-shined philosophically speaking by a bunch of realists and enlightenment thinkin do-gooders.

To suggest that constitution is dead is a little silly, in my very firm opinion.

The argument that the second amendment can only be relevant to weapons at the time it was written is goofy, and, if my memory serves me well enough, was already debunked in several court cases.

The issue of gun control, and the limitations thereof, have been debated since 1822.

But, it is my opinion as well that, whatever reason we may argue about the second amendment, semi-automatic rifles (single round shots per trigger pull that uses the energy to inject a new bullet) will not compete against a tyrannical government.Tyranny comes in many forms, and our greatest weapon happens to be knowledge. Culturally, it seems, we would rather feel safe, than actually be safe.
Fallen Angel of Hell
Ammo Amy
Wendigo
He was pretty clearly referring to the idea that the Constitution comes to mean different things over time, as social standards change. He's one of the die-hard opponents of that concept, preferring to rely on th' meanings the words would have had in 1789 when ratified. (Or later, in the case of amendments, of course.)

Not to say that there's no merit in that idea, but Scalia is still a dipshit.


If that were the case, then the 2nd Amendment would mean weapons at the time it was written, which means people can have all the muzzle-loading muskets and pistols, balls, & gunpowder they wish to have, and nothing newer. Those were the guns the Founding Fathers envisioned at the time of the writing. The only real argument would be over ownership of front-loading cast-iron canons.

The thing is, Scalia is two-faced about his interpretations. In the case of weapons, since there is no mention of what kind, all weapons are OK. In the case of Gay rights, there is no mention of it, so it should be banned. The only consistency Scalia has is the interests of his party and their backers.


I believe there to be a misunderstanding on where Scalia stands. First, he's already acknowledged that the Second Amendment, like any other amendment, is limited in scope. Scalia is a strict constitutionalist, but not all of the time. He's very Blackstonian in his attempt, which was really out-shined philosophically speaking by a bunch of realists and enlightenment thinkin do-gooders.

To suggest that constitution is dead is a little silly, in my very firm opinion.

The argument that the second amendment can only be relevant to weapons at the time it was written is goofy, and, if my memory serves me well enough, was already debunked in several court cases.

The issue of gun control, and the limitations thereof, have been debated since 1822.

But, it is my opinion as well that, whatever reason we may argue about the second amendment, semi-automatic rifles (single round shots per trigger pull that uses the energy to inject a new bullet) will not compete against a tyrannical government.Tyranny comes in many forms, and our greatest weapon happens to be knowledge. Culturally, it seems, we would rather feel safe, than actually be safe.


And yet he still claims:

1. Since there was no restrictions on abortions or homosexuality in the Constitution, all restrictions should be allowed.
Quote:
“The death penalty? It’s easy. Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. [...] Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion,” Scalia added. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”


2. Since there were no mentions of restrictions of firearms, almost NO restrictions should be allowed.
Quote:
Scalia undecided on if there’s a right to bear a rocket launcher — In discussing the Aurora shootings earlier this year, Justice Scalia told a Fox news host that he firmly backed the right to bear arms, clarifying this did not include manning a cannon but that there might be an argument for carrying a rocket launcher.



He's either a flake or a mouthpiece, take your choice. After all, he did say the Constitution was "dead, dead, dead", and his decisions don't have a damn thing to do with interpreting it, but rather how he and his handlers fell about a subject.
Ammo Amy
Fallen Angel of Hell
Ammo Amy
Wendigo
He was pretty clearly referring to the idea that the Constitution comes to mean different things over time, as social standards change. He's one of the die-hard opponents of that concept, preferring to rely on th' meanings the words would have had in 1789 when ratified. (Or later, in the case of amendments, of course.)

Not to say that there's no merit in that idea, but Scalia is still a dipshit.


If that were the case, then the 2nd Amendment would mean weapons at the time it was written, which means people can have all the muzzle-loading muskets and pistols, balls, & gunpowder they wish to have, and nothing newer. Those were the guns the Founding Fathers envisioned at the time of the writing. The only real argument would be over ownership of front-loading cast-iron canons.

The thing is, Scalia is two-faced about his interpretations. In the case of weapons, since there is no mention of what kind, all weapons are OK. In the case of Gay rights, there is no mention of it, so it should be banned. The only consistency Scalia has is the interests of his party and their backers.


I believe there to be a misunderstanding on where Scalia stands. First, he's already acknowledged that the Second Amendment, like any other amendment, is limited in scope. Scalia is a strict constitutionalist, but not all of the time. He's very Blackstonian in his attempt, which was really out-shined philosophically speaking by a bunch of realists and enlightenment thinkin do-gooders.

To suggest that constitution is dead is a little silly, in my very firm opinion.

The argument that the second amendment can only be relevant to weapons at the time it was written is goofy, and, if my memory serves me well enough, was already debunked in several court cases.

The issue of gun control, and the limitations thereof, have been debated since 1822.

But, it is my opinion as well that, whatever reason we may argue about the second amendment, semi-automatic rifles (single round shots per trigger pull that uses the energy to inject a new bullet) will not compete against a tyrannical government.Tyranny comes in many forms, and our greatest weapon happens to be knowledge. Culturally, it seems, we would rather feel safe, than actually be safe.


And yet he still claims:

1. Since there was no restrictions on abortions or homosexuality in the Constitution, all restrictions should be allowed.
Quote:
“The death penalty? It’s easy. Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. [...] Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion,” Scalia added. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”


2. Since there were no mentions of restrictions of firearms, almost NO restrictions should be allowed.
Quote:
Scalia undecided on if there’s a right to bear a rocket launcher — In discussing the Aurora shootings earlier this year, Justice Scalia told a Fox news host that he firmly backed the right to bear arms, clarifying this did not include manning a cannon but that there might be an argument for carrying a rocket launcher.



He's either a flake or a mouthpiece, take your choice. After all, he did say the Constitution was "dead, dead, dead", and his decisions don't have a damn thing to do with interpreting it, but rather how he and his handlers fell about a subject.


Actually, it does mention firearms limitations. It states 'shall not be infringed'.
Old Blue Collar Joe

Actually, it does mention firearms limitations. It states 'shall not be infringed'.


It also states "well regulated Militia" but we see how that is twisted, don't we Joe? I was a time when everyone was expected to serve and everyone was pretty much expected to bring their own weapons.
Old Blue Collar Joe


Actually, it does mention firearms limitations. It states 'shall not be infringed'.


I am simply going to quote Justice Brown's opinion of Supreme Court in Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1989):

"The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the 'Bill of Rights,' were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed.

Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press ( article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation;

the right of the people [165 U.S. 275, 282] to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;

the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion (U. S. v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 627 , 16 S. Sup. Ct. 1192);

nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify, if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment (Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 , 16 Sup. Ct. 644, and cases cited).

Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial."

Source: [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=165&invol=275]

I happily emphasized the point in relation to your comment. This tendency to to make infringe synonymous with regulation is not very well grounded, and in fact contrary to constitutional law and interpretation.

if you are unfamiliar with any other case law, you might read United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. This case is used by both sides of the debate on gun control.

But, for grander scope in relation to your comment, as well as Scalia, let's check out what was said in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200 cool :

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

You may disagree with what has been decided, and has been the law, and interpreted view for well over 100 years - which is fine, but it lacks any significant support.
Ammo Amy
Fallen Angel of Hell
Ammo Amy
Wendigo
He was pretty clearly referring to the idea that the Constitution comes to mean different things over time, as social standards change. He's one of the die-hard opponents of that concept, preferring to rely on th' meanings the words would have had in 1789 when ratified. (Or later, in the case of amendments, of course.)

Not to say that there's no merit in that idea, but Scalia is still a dipshit.


If that were the case, then the 2nd Amendment would mean weapons at the time it was written, which means people can have all the muzzle-loading muskets and pistols, balls, & gunpowder they wish to have, and nothing newer. Those were the guns the Founding Fathers envisioned at the time of the writing. The only real argument would be over ownership of front-loading cast-iron canons.

The thing is, Scalia is two-faced about his interpretations. In the case of weapons, since there is no mention of what kind, all weapons are OK. In the case of Gay rights, there is no mention of it, so it should be banned. The only consistency Scalia has is the interests of his party and their backers.


I believe there to be a misunderstanding on where Scalia stands. First, he's already acknowledged that the Second Amendment, like any other amendment, is limited in scope. Scalia is a strict constitutionalist, but not all of the time. He's very Blackstonian in his attempt, which was really out-shined philosophically speaking by a bunch of realists and enlightenment thinkin do-gooders.

To suggest that constitution is dead is a little silly, in my very firm opinion.

The argument that the second amendment can only be relevant to weapons at the time it was written is goofy, and, if my memory serves me well enough, was already debunked in several court cases.

The issue of gun control, and the limitations thereof, have been debated since 1822.

But, it is my opinion as well that, whatever reason we may argue about the second amendment, semi-automatic rifles (single round shots per trigger pull that uses the energy to inject a new bullet) will not compete against a tyrannical government.Tyranny comes in many forms, and our greatest weapon happens to be knowledge. Culturally, it seems, we would rather feel safe, than actually be safe.


And yet he still claims:

1. Since there was no restrictions on abortions or homosexuality in the Constitution, all restrictions should be allowed.
Quote:
“The death penalty? It’s easy. Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. [...] Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion,” Scalia added. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”


2. Since there were no mentions of restrictions of firearms, almost NO restrictions should be allowed.
Quote:
Scalia undecided on if there’s a right to bear a rocket launcher — In discussing the Aurora shootings earlier this year, Justice Scalia told a Fox news host that he firmly backed the right to bear arms, clarifying this did not include manning a cannon but that there might be an argument for carrying a rocket launcher.



He's either a flake or a mouthpiece, take your choice. After all, he did say the Constitution was "dead, dead, dead", and his decisions don't have a damn thing to do with interpreting it, but rather how he and his handlers fell about a subject.


To be frank, I don't know what abortion, gay rights, or gun rights really has to do with the philosophical notion that the constitution is dead, and I am not entirely sure why Scalia happens to be the centerstone of this debate. But your points are touching on legal terminology, and constitutional interpretations. Applying different approaches to interpreting our constitution does not destroy it's intent, or meaning, or purpose - and it certainly doesn't kill it.

The constitution isn't dead, and Scalia certainly isn't the expert on the matter.

Might you explain, in fine detail perhaps, how it is that the constitution might be dead.
Ammo Amy
Old Blue Collar Joe

Actually, it does mention firearms limitations. It states 'shall not be infringed'.


It also states "well regulated Militia" but we see how that is twisted, don't we Joe? I was a time when everyone was expected to serve and everyone was pretty much expected to bring their own weapons.


And again you're missing the comma, and are you stating that the second is the only amendment, when it refers to the 'rights of the people', doesn't apply to all of them?
Fallen Angel of Hell


To be frank, I don't know what abortion, gay rights, or gun rights really has to do with the philosophical notion that the constitution is dead, and I am not entirely sure why Scalia happens to be the centerstone of this debate. But your points are touching on legal terminology, and constitutional interpretations. Applying different approaches to interpreting our constitution does not destroy it's intent, or meaning, or purpose - and it certainly doesn't kill it.

The constitution isn't dead, and Scalia certainly isn't the expert on the matter.

Might you explain, in fine detail perhaps, how it is that the constitution might be dead.


It isn't I that stated the Constitution was dead, but Justice Scalia, who stated it was "dead, dead, dead". Perhaps you can ask him.

Old Blue Collar Joe
Ammo Amy
Old Blue Collar Joe

Actually, it does mention firearms limitations. It states 'shall not be infringed'.


It also states "well regulated Militia" but we see how that is twisted, don't we Joe? I was a time when everyone was expected to serve and everyone was pretty much expected to bring their own weapons.


And again you're missing the comma, and are you stating that the second is the only amendment, when it refers to the 'rights of the people', doesn't apply to all of them?


Keep twisting and splitting those hairs, Joe. Do it long enough and you can make it mean anything you want.

I'm glad there are so many new-found experts in Colonial grammar. After the language and meaning had been established for over 200 years, it was suddenly changed by the interpretation of the placement of a comma in 2008, with the help of our very same Justice "the Constitution is dead, dead, dead" Scalia in a 5 - 4 vote. That comma allowed certain people to discard and disregard the entire "militia" part of it. What's interesting is the the sentence that was ratified by the States and signed by the Secretary of State didn't even have that pesky comma.
Omnileech
He's been saying that for a while now, but I don't think he really means what he says. If you were to interpret the Constitution for what you believe society at the time the Constitution and Amendments were ratified then you would be limited to the imagination and ideas present at the time of the constitution's founding. Scalia for instance, believes that hand-held rockets are legal for the common citizen to own under the Second Amendment despite the fact that the idea of a portable missile-launcher did not exist and I would bet Scalia all the money in the world that he couldn't find a primary-source document from the era to prove otherwise.

I'm sure they figured that some sort of handheld artillery would exist by now.
Omnileech's avatar

Omnipresent Warlord

deadroosters
Omnileech
He's been saying that for a while now, but I don't think he really means what he says. If you were to interpret the Constitution for what you believe society at the time the Constitution and Amendments were ratified then you would be limited to the imagination and ideas present at the time of the constitution's founding. Scalia for instance, believes that hand-held rockets are legal for the common citizen to own under the Second Amendment despite the fact that the idea of a portable missile-launcher did not exist and I would bet Scalia all the money in the world that he couldn't find a primary-source document from the era to prove otherwise.

I'm sure they figured that some sort of handheld artillery would exist by now.


But rockets don't work like cannons. They're conceptually very different. Grenades either, or things that shoot grenades.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games