Constitutional Concrete?

A recent online article reached out, grabbed me by the collar and screamed, "READ ME!!!". The topic suggested that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was working the room in an effort to become the No. 1 seed for the seat of Chief Justice when the aging and ailing William Rehnquist is finally deemed incapable to corral the boys and girls of the Court.

Scalia has never been a favorite of mine and the feeling is echoed by many. However, he is a brilliant jurist in his own right and some of his written decisions are masterpieces which will land him a spot in the Judicial Hall of Fame. The problem I have with Mr.. Justice Scalia is his view that the Constitution is nothing more than a legal document with the same meaning now as it did back when it was ratified in 1788. He denies its existence as a 'living Constitution", one where changes are necessary to reflect societal changes. Scalia feels, and I agree with him to a certain extent, that the legislature should provide for the needs of the People and the Court should look no further than the four corners of the document itself. The legislature and other elected officials should look to their constituents when they vote a yay or nay. But the Court better be ready to interpret the law since some of the people we put in office can't properly compose a grocery list.

The Articles of the Constitution provide for three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Each has certain checks and balances on the other to prevent an unequal distribution of control. But the Framers knew from the inception of the Constitution, that it was far from perfect. So, the Framers did as Mr. Justice Scalia proposed so many years later. They whipped up some amendments to the original document and sent them out to be ratified by the States. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, came to be the law of the land and the Constitution began to live and breath. More amendments were added to reflect the changes in society. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and the 14th provided citizenship rights and that citizens of the various states were entitled to Due Process in state proceedings. That's right. Until that time, a defendant in the state court was not entitled to the same protections as a defendant in the federal court system. The 18th Amendment proposed no booze and the 21st said booze was ok. The 19th gave women the right to vote. The Constitution lives; it breaths. It does not lie dormant. Granted, to an extent Scalia is correct in his premise that the citizens can change the laws in that all of these Amendments stem from a cooperative legislative/citizen endeavor. But sometimes a little common sense as to what the Constitution really stands for is necessary. Sometimes a little bit of guts helps.

The Court has at times looked beyond the four corners of the document. If you read and reread the Constitution, you will never locate the passage giving protection to marriage as a privacy right. Read Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). An opinion rendered by another heavy judicial hitter, Justice William Douglas. The point is that we live in an ever changing day and age. Technological advances dictate that the Court make decisions based on the current state of affairs and not the 18th Century. It is paramount that the Court will reign in an overzealous legislature.

I would not in my wildest dreams even consider debating Justice Scalia on the subject for I know he would bestow upon me the most severe gavel whipping in the history of American Jurisprudence. I just consider the Constitution to be more than a piece of paper.

http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/scalia/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2114219/