U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio tonight paid glowing tribute to the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
The praise came while Rubio was taking part in the Republican presidential debate.
He said something that struck me as, well, fascinating. Rubio said Scalia’s legal brilliance was rooted in his belief that the U.S. Constitution is not a “living document,” but that the Constitution should be interpreted precisely as the founders intended.
I don’t believe for one second that Justice Scalia wanted to roll back the advances that came about in the many years since the founders wrote the Constitution — in the late 18th century.
However, if Rubio’s praise of Scalia is to be taken literally, it seems fair to wonder: Does he believe the founders were right to deny women the right to vote, or that African-Americans should be enslaved?
Of course he doesn’t.
However, we can see the discrepancy — in my view — in the debate over whether the Constitution is a living document. The argument of those who favor the so-called “original intent” of the founders breaks down.
Why? Because of the many reforms approved in the 200-plus years since the Constitution was ratified, the document does indeed evolve as our nation has evolved.
It’s alive, man.
This is why he was a brilliant man. You? Again misrepresent the other side. Original intent is what the writers of the Constitution intended when they wrote it. That includes the writers of amendments giving women the right to vote and blacks the right to equal treatment under the law. The founders intended the constitution to be amended and laid out a couple very specific ways in which it should be done. It is people who want to reinterpret the Constitution with every case that have no respect for the Constitution or the government and rights derived from it. A “living Constitution” is no constitution at all.
Yes, I have known all along I’m not as smart as the late justice. Thanks for the reminder.
Addendum: If we’d had some original intent jurists on the bench from 1865-1965, they probably would have stopped your Democrats’ Jim Crow era before it ever got off the ground by viewing the 14th Amendment as it was intended, not as a living thing, open to interpretation and legal manipulation.
Life must be so much simpler if you can just write off opposing views as those of racists, sexists and homophobes.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No prob. Now please stop pretending original intent ignores the 27 Amendments just so you can accuse it adherents of being pro-slavery, and anti-woman.
I don’t believe I made such an accusation. We’ll probably disagree on that, too. Thanks again.
“It seems fair to wonder: Does he believe the founders were right to deny women the right to vote, or that African-Americans should be enslaved?”
Do you really think people don’t recognize this as the deceptive practice of journalists who want to make an assertion without the need to defend it?
The next sentence reads: “Of course he doesn’t.”
Followed by “HOWEVER”
The concept of original intent only breaks down if you ignore all the amendments since and the fact there is a clearly defined path to alter it to adapt to the times. These are parts of the Constitution as well.
🙂