Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,139 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here's your link to this weekend's Antonin Scalia v Nadine Strossen (ACLU President) debate aired on C-Span. IMHO, Strossen comes across like a starry-eyed minor league pitcher throwing hanging curve balls to Babe Ruth. Scalia's intellect and clarity run circles around hers. He apparently has forgotten more than she ever knew. Good watch.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e101506_ ... de=compact
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,643 Posts
I saw that on TV the other night. Hilarious. I always thought of answers for what she said, but Scalia would always come up with something I did not anticipate.

In short, the entire debate is Nadine making grand policy announcements as to what she thinks the court should declare, followed by loud cheering and applause from the audience, followed by Nino responding "But the Constitution says X," followed by silence from the audience.

The structure of what was discussed tells one as much about the argument as what was said. She did not argue even once for the actual text or original intent of the Consitution.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,643 Posts
I will quote Mike Adams, who wrote:

If the Constitution is a “living, breathing document†are we free to ignore original intent altogether?

Legislating Morality, Part II

Another gem from the same article:

James Madison once said that “We have staked the future of all of our political institutions … upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.†Was this the same James Madison who wrote the First Amendment?

Take a few minutes to re-read the First Amendment. Did Madison include the word “separation†in that Amendment? How about the word “church� How about the word “state�
I am sure Nadine would have a stroke before she could even finish reading it. The ACLU files some rather ridiculous lawsuits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,139 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Your assessment of Nadine is spot on. She repeatedly says something like, 'but haven't we evolved past that original meaning.' 'Isn't it a good thing that we are now so enlighted as to no longer have laws against homosexual sodomy.' While Scalia proudly states that while he frequently doesn't like the outcome that his rulings create, he gets there by reading the Constitution and the law. His is not to judge whether some outcome or law is a good idea or proper viewed through some natural law concept, but rather it fits the Consitution or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
kkennett said:
Your assessment of Nadine is spot on. She repeatedly says something like, 'but haven't we evolved past that original meaning.' 'Isn't it a good thing that we are now so enlighted as to no longer have laws against homosexual sodomy.' While Scalia proudly states that while he frequently doesn't like the outcome that his rulings create, he gets there by reading the Constitution and the law. His is not to judge whether some outcome or law is a good idea or proper viewed through some natural law concept, but rather it fits the Consitution or not.
And that is why he is my favorite Justice.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The living document crap is the greatest threat to civil liberties possible. If the constitution can mean anything it means nothing. Anyone who doesn't realize this is ignorant of the true nature of language and the power the words hold or fully aware and intentionally trying to change the meaning to advance their own control.

I think Big Brother would be proud...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
I totally agree that the original intent must be adhered to. Believe it or not, where I work, my boss was a LTC in the Army. One day we were discussing guns and he stated that the US Consitution was a living document. That shocked me coming from a military man. I argued that it was not, and that if he was right, there was no need to allow amendments. We could just interpret it as to its meaning based on our society at the time (which is what has been happening). I stated that he needed to read the Federalist Papers and do some research into the founder's intent. I asked him that since he took an oath to defend the Constitution, did that mean, "as he interpreted it." We ended the discussion disagreeing. That is scary, when an Officer is the US Army believes that crap. By the way, he had just returned to uniform after a year as a Harvard Fellow - that kinda explains a lot:)
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,643 Posts
viper32cm said:
And that is why he is my favorite Justice.
Read the Raich decision last year, in which Scalia sided with the majority citing with approval that monstrosity of a case Wickard v. Filburn, and make sure to read Thomas's dissent.

Then report back on who is your favorite Justice. :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
Read the Raich decision last year, in which Scalia sided with the majority citing with approval that monstrosity of a case Wickard v. Filburn, and make sure to read Thomas's dissent.

Then report back on who is your favorite Justice. :wink:
Been there, done that, last semester.

I always forget that he voted that way in Raich, which does piss me off to no end. :oops: In my notes I wrote "Wickard lives" when we got to that case.

So yeah, he's responsible for screwing us pretty badly.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
I don't have a favorite justice. I only count them as good or bad depending on the case itself. They all stray, just depends on the case and the topic of interest.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,643 Posts
Gunstar1 said:
I don't have a favorite justice. I only count them as good or bad depending on the case itself. They all stray, just depends on the case and the topic of interest.
They sure aren't St. George Tucker, are they? :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
Gunstar1 said:
I don't have a favorite justice. I only count them as good or bad depending on the case itself. They all stray, just depends on the case and the topic of interest.
They sure aren't St. George Tucker, are they? :D
Nope, you may be able to put a couple of them together and get SGT's view on the first amendment, then a couple others and get SGT's second and so on, but no one is close to his full understanding of the BOR and Constitution.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top