Who the FUCK asked him?









If we did as this dried up turd wanted some people would only be considered 3/5 of a person.

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors"

...But who the hell was he anyway.

We would still have slavery and women wouldn't be able to vote.

...he would probably insist that amendments are the only legitimate way to change the constitution. The abolition of slavery and the right of women to vote were accomplished by the 13th and the 19th Amendments.

The Bible I know about not only contains Leviticus 18.22, it also contains Exodus 22.18 - "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

The hypocrisy cries out unto Heaven.

I give you the case of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), about a woman in California who was growing marijuana for medicinal uses, which was legal under California law, but illegal under Federal law. She was not selling it, nor was she even giving it away, nor was it taken out of California. Antonin Scalia wrote an opinion against Raich, basing it on the Commerce Clause. Clarence Thomas, of all people, called him on it, saying

Clarence Thomas, of all people, said that Scalia was wrong, saying that Raich grew and used

marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. ... By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power.

Thomas wrote: "The Necessary and Proper Clause is not a warrant to Congress to enact any law that bears some conceivable connection to the exercise of an enumerated power". He went on to say "Congress presented no evidence in support of its conclusions, which are not so much findings of fact as assertions of power," and concluded: "Congress cannot define the scope of its own power merely by declaring the necessity of its enactments".

The gist of Thomas' dissent comes straight out of original intent:

Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States". Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

With regard to originalism in general, Thomas Jefferson wrote

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

on how he thinks, shall we:

During the 1970's this justice worked in the Nixon White house and was crafting a means to flay / gut the Public Broadcasting budget , because during that time it was fairly safe to say it did its job on journalism (not like to day-----because of cuts to funding and fear and the take over of oligarchies getting there message out).

The newly formed White House of Office of Telecommunications Policy was crafting a policy for funding from the general counsel one Anthony Scalia, from which he drafted some memo's that would make the Public Broadcasting Corporation more of a vassal of the White House.

Quote.........

"The best possibility for White House influence is through the Presidential appointees to the Board of Directors", he wrote, the best way to shed the influence of "the liberal Establishment of the Northeast" would be to strengthen the local stations at the expense of the national organization . Such subtleties were well and good until Richard Nixon read in his news summary that Sandor Vanocur, late of NBC, who had been bête noire since 1960 presidential debates, was slated to co-anchor a new PBS magazine. Nixon issued a blunt dictate " all funds for Public Broadcasting be cut immediately."

( page 596 Nixonland by Steve Perlstein )


bête noire

noun \ˌbet-ˈnwär, ˌbāt-\

: a person or thing that someone dislikes very much



So when Scalia speaks let's just remember that this person who is suppose to uphold the Constitution and all of the Amendments----------------apparently he has a disdain for the press and free speech and it goes all the way back to when he was in the Nixon White House------------------so this says a lot about this mans character.

Here is the general counsel of the OPT trying to make the PBS system a propaganda machine for the White House (public policy)---------------because Nixon hated the press--------so his plan (Scalia) was to cut funding and get cronies on the board----------he (Nixon) blamed the press for all of his failures not taking into account that he made his bed and slept in his paranoia and he condoned and authorized criminal acts.

So for Scalia to come and say that he is a "originalism," of the Constitution , well he has tried in his own vane to use it the other way as a "living document" for his own means----------------and he doesn't have a very good track record, back then he was making policy and his argument does not hold water----------------------nice try now resign

Scalia is a happy participant in the most activist Supreme Court in this country's history, merrily interpreting and re-writing the Constitution on a daily basis. What a blessed day it will be for this country when this evil old man exits the court.

tarnished by the ugliest of humanity. That sucks.

Article V instructs us how to amend the constitution and states that amendments are to be considered for 'all Intents and Purposes' to be part of the constitution.

I guess he forgot that...


Impeach the moron, please.