Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (126454)	7/21/2005 10:07:47 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793818

<bThat seems to me the inevitable demonstration that the only sensible way to construe a constitution is the way you construe statutes. Who am I to disagree with Scalia? But here goes: My understanding of Scalia's position is this. If parts of the statue is no longer in fashion or in touch with the community, you have to amend it. If the nose no longer reflect what the population looks like, you have a process wherein you could amend it. The same goes with hair, or height...Scalia would not do any thing about it as a member of the SC. He would just let the people decide. If they want to change it, they could just amend it. Terrific analogy. Pretty soon the statue would be a mess. Instead, I would use a more modern analogy or model. The Constitution is a protocol. It is an architecture. It has to be scaleable. It has to be able to grow and change with the times. The Supreme Court judges are there to make sure it still conforms to original intent. In other words, what would the framers of the Constitution be doing today. The Supreme court has to interpret. That is a role for human beings. Otherwise, a computer model could do the job. There is a certain amount of interpretation that has to go into the job. The judges have to be aware of the architecture. They have to be aware of the circumstances. They have to know what is going on. They have to make changes in proportion to the original intent. The statue has to maintain its beauty. Scalia admits he does not know what is going on today - and he doesnd't care to know. He is there to maintain the statue. IMO he should not be on the SC.