It's my first diary, please be gentle.
http://news.yahoo.com/... This is a link to Scalia's "dismissal" of the concept of a living constitution.
"Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution." 'But you would have to be an idiot to believe that,' Scalia said. 'The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things.'"
Yes Tony, it says some things, it doesn't say other things, and it completely ignores a whole host of things. What amazes me is that it is so hard for an arguably intelligent man like Scalia to see that the Constitution was a POLITICAL compromise document...(more)
The Constitution was not a mythical holy document that addresses all issues for all times. It was a compromise political document filled with a lot of nuance and purposeful vagueness. It does have some basic concepts yes, and those concepts have worked very well, but there are a whole host of issues that have faced this nation over the last 150 years that the Founders couldnt have possibly addressed. Another point is that the Founders weren't one static group of people, but a collection of diverse thinkers, and most could find things to be unhappy with in the Constitution.
Finally, I find these two parts of the story rather humorous:
"According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs"
Followed by:
"They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said."
No room for personal, political or religious beliefs?? Who's he kidding?!