Scalia Argues Against Evolving Constitution

Scalia argues against an evolving Constitution.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• scalia
• terrorism
• freedom
• liberty
• republican
• conservative
• democrat
• bush
• authoritarian
• warisforsuckers
• war
• is
• for
• suckers

[FAHayek89]

@seahorse1945 With that said, I do not think it is the concern of the Supreme Court to focus on those moral arguments, religious or secular. The role of the court to decide law based on text. The proper place for such moral debates is in the legislative branch.

[FAHayek89]

@seahorse1945 I also think it is wrong to exclude religious people from the public discourse or to require them to provide exclusively non-religious justifications for their beliefs (though I do think they ought to couple religious justifications with justifications that do not require reliance on revelation.) Too often, the left in the U.S. forgets that the most important moral movements in our history – anti-slavery and civil rights – were intensely religious.

[prschuster]

@Eternaldream00 You're right. Good laws are not enough. There must be the political will to abide by them and to uphold certain values. I agree with you there.

[Eternaldream00]

@Eternaldream00 Have you ever thought why it is very unlikely there would be a nondemocratic regime in the U.S.? It's not just because you have a robust set of rights and liberties written down somewhere but because the people believe they have them.

[Eternaldream00]

@prschuster The Patriot Act was enacted despite it being unconstitutional....I was born in a communist country we had all sorts of fancy laws and rights none of which were enforced They only existed de jure but not de facto....the will to uphold certain values is whats important here. I give you that good laws are necessary but simply writing more legislation won't right all wrongs.

[prschuster]

@prschuster In other words, the first amendment sets an important precedent that can be used to fight some of the civil liberty issues associated with the Patriot Act. Likewise, the 15th amendment acted as a precedent for the civil right movement of the 1960s. Don't kid youraelf about people being so unprejudiced & open minded. The whole controversy over the "ground zero mosque" is a prime example of blatant racial & religious prejudice; but no one will admit to that.

[prschuster]

@Eternaldream00 "Lets say we did repeal those amendments. Do you think that there would be a great surge of openly racist conduct on the institutional or private level? I do not think so,"

Then you might as well make the same argument about the Bill of Rights, as if repealing the first 10 amendments would have no consequence on our basic freedoms like our freedom of speech.. but then there's the Patriot Act. Sorry, I just don't buy your argument.

[Eternaldream00]

@prschuster Now don't misunderstand me I am 100% against racism but I am also 100% against hypocrisy. Let's allow the racists to express themselves publicly, so we can clearly see who they are. It seems I have much greater hope and trust in the civility of the people than you do. i might be wrong but consider this..The movement for slave liberation started because the people saw it as evil not because it was written on some paper somewhere.

[Eternaldream00]

@prschuster Lets say we did repeal those amendments. Do you think that there would be a great surge of openly racist conduct on the institutional or private level? I do not think so, Hardly anyone would like to be associated with racism today regardless of what the law says. This is mainly a cultural phenomenon. It is clear that banning somebody from being racist doesn't mean the person actually stops being racist. This legislature only makes racism to go into hiding and spread roots.

[prschuster]

@Eternaldream00 But when there is systematic discrimination that results from prejudice rather than legislation, then the lack of legal protections results in loss of freedom. Would you then allow businesses the liberty to curtail free access to different groups in society by failing to outlaw discrimination? According to you, the priviledge of denying service based on race creed or religion should not be infringed upon. Should we rescind the 13th 14th & 15th amendments?