The Constitution "is not living, but dead." With these words Associate Justice Scalia sums up how he believes we should think about the Constitution -- a way of thinking that underpins the theory of "originalism" which guides his approach to cases that come before the Supreme Court.
In expounding on originalism, Scalia takes the Court to task on past decisions, including Roe v. Wade, and measures just how far the Court can and should go in reversing these mistakes- Hoover Institution
Bio
Peter Robinson
Peter M. Robinson is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he writes about business and politics, edits the Hoover Institution's quarterly journal, the Hoover Digest, and hosts Hoover's television program, "Uncommon Knowledge."
Robinson is also the author of three books: How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life; It's My Party: A Republican's Messy Love Affair with the GOP; and the best-selling business book Snapshots from Hell: The Making of an MBA.
Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, was born in Trenton, New Jersey, March 11, 1936. He received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School, and was a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University from 1960-1961.
He was in private practice in Cleveland, Ohio from 1961-1967, a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia from 1967-1971, and a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago from 1977-1982, and a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University and Stanford University.
He was chairman of the American Bar Association's Section of Administrative Law, 1981-1982, and its Conference of Section Chairmen, 1982-1983. He served the federal government as General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications Policy from 1971-1972, Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States from 1972-1974, and Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel from 1974-1977.
He was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1982. President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat September 26, 1986.
(born March 11, 1936, Trenton, N.J., U.S.) U.S. jurist. He studied at Georgetown University and Harvard Law School, where he edited its law review. Successively, he worked for a Cleveland law firm (196167), taught at the University of Virginia (196774), served as an assistant U.S. attorney general (197477), and taught at the University of Chicago (197782). He was appointed by Pres. Ronald Reagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals (1982) and then to the Supreme Court of the United States (1986). Among the court's most outspoken justices, he quickly earned a reputation for aggressive oral argument and scathingly critical written opinions, especially when expressing dissenting views. An opponent of judicial activism, he favoured a restrained judiciary, deference to the original intent of the framers in constitutional interpretation, and a limited role for the federal government.
"All you need is a legislature and a ballot box." Ideally, that's great. If only the entire population were enlightened enough to wield that power well. The rigid and ossified constitution is supposed to protect our freedoms against the tyranny of the majority. But as society progresses, so to does the concept of our freedom, and constitutional guarantees of freedom must accommodate them, don't you think? Saying "if you want a right, pass a law" is crap. I don't want to have to pass a law for every single thing I want to be allowed to do, especially if it has no effect beyond my own personal well-being. A law should only say what I am NOT allowed to do. The law says I cannot murder someone. I cannot steal from someone. Thankfully, I don't yet require legislative permission to dye my hair pink or eat a picnic lunch in the park.
Regarding the activist Constitution interpretation, Justice Scalia explained:
Much of the harm that has been done in recent years by activist constitution interpretation is made possible by a theory which says that unlike an ordinary law which doesn’t change – it means what it meant when it was enacted and will always mean that – the Constitution changes from decade to decade to comport with the “evolving standards of decency” that mark the progress of a maturing society. In other words we have a morphing constitution. And of course it is up to the court to decide when it morphs and how it morphs. That’s generally paraded as the “living constitution” and unfortunately that philosophy has made enormous headway with lawyers and judges but even with John Q Public.
Elaborating on his earlier statement that “devotees of The Living Constitution do not seek to facilitate social change but to prevent it” (Scalia & Gutmann, 1998), Justice Scalia said:
To make things change you don’t need a constitution. The function of a Constitution is to rigidify, to ossify, NOT to facilitate change. You want change? All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. Things will change as fast as you like. My constitution, very flexible, when you want a right to abortion, persuade your fellow citizens that it's a good idea. And pass a law. And then you find out, the results are worse than we ever thought, you can repeal the law. That’s flexibility. The reason people want the Supreme Court to declare that abortion is a constitutional right is precisely to rigidify that right, it means it sweeps across all fifty states and it is a law now and forever or until the Supreme Court changes its mind. That’s not flexibility.
"By trying to make the Constitution do everything that needs doing from age to age, we shall have caused it to do nothing at all." (Scalia & Gutmann, 1998)
Referring to his notion of the dead Constitution, Justice Scalia once said, “that didn’t work, so I invented ‘enduring Constitution’,” and he went on, “Packaging is everything.”
Source(s):
Scalia, A., & Gutmann, A. (1998). A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton University Press.