Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
2nd Amendment Victory
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jagger" data-source="post: 378411" data-attributes="member: 16628"><p><strong>Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Just An Excuse</strong></p><p></p><p>Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse For His Judicial Activism</p><p></p><p></p><p>In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of <em>Heller v. D. C</em>, authored by a notorious judicial activist, Justice Scalia, announces his intention to follow a rule of constitutional construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense they were normally and ordinarily used by ordinary citizens of the founding generation. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em> Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em> right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em> infringed.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em> principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em> by the voters; its words and phrases were used in</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em> their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em> meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em> (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em> Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em> meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em> would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em> founding generation. </em> </p><p>Scalia is mistaken. The meaning of the constitution must be ascertained by the application of such rules of interpretation as were understood and recognized as just and valid, at the time the constitution was framed and adopted. At the time the Constitution was made, the well established common law rules of construction didn't include any rule which dictated that a legal instrument was to be understood according the the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens of the generation that produced the instrument.</p><p></p><p>Scalia is an activist. He doesn't want to be bound by the rules of construction as were understood and recognized as just and valid, at the time the constitution was framed and adopted, because they won't produce results that square with his personal views.he wants. So, he digs up some nonsense he found in the dicta of an 1930's judicial opinion. </p><p></p><p>He does this merely to have a pretext to substitute his personal opinions for the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Second Amendment, in the name of the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jagger, post: 378411, member: 16628"] [b]Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Just An Excuse[/b] Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse For His Judicial Activism In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of [I]Heller v. D. C[/I], authored by a notorious judicial activist, Justice Scalia, announces his intention to follow a rule of constitutional construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense they were normally and ordinarily used by ordinary citizens of the founding generation. [INDENT][I]The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation. [/I] [/INDENT]Scalia is mistaken. The meaning of the constitution must be ascertained by the application of such rules of interpretation as were understood and recognized as just and valid, at the time the constitution was framed and adopted. At the time the Constitution was made, the well established common law rules of construction didn't include any rule which dictated that a legal instrument was to be understood according the the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens of the generation that produced the instrument. Scalia is an activist. He doesn't want to be bound by the rules of construction as were understood and recognized as just and valid, at the time the constitution was framed and adopted, because they won't produce results that square with his personal views.he wants. So, he digs up some nonsense he found in the dicta of an 1930's judicial opinion. He does this merely to have a pretext to substitute his personal opinions for the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Second Amendment, in the name of the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
2nd Amendment Victory
Top