Scalia is brilliant and his wisdom is what all judges should live by. The text is what it is, period, end of story. If something isn't addressed in the constitution, it's up to the people and states. If there is something people don't like anymore, amendment the constitution. Simple as that.

Why are libs so scared of this? I know why, but let's see who can guess!

----------------------------------------------

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejects idea of 'Living Constitution'
Alice Su/For The Times of Trenton
December 10, 2012

PRINCETON BOROUGH — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia does not believe that America has a living constitution.

“The constitution is not an organism. It’s a legal text,” Scalia told a few hundred campus and community members at a talk in Princeton University’s Richardson Auditorium this afternoon. “It means today what it meant when it was adopted.”

The associate justice, who was born in Trenton and grew up in New York, returned to the area to talk about his recent book “Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Text,” which defends originalism and textualism, the beliefs that law should be interpreted according to its original text and meaning. They are the fairest approaches to constitutional interpretation, he said.

“Our statutes don’t morph. They don’t change meaning from age to age to comport with whatever the zeitgeist thinks appropriate,” Scalia said. “When you read Chaucer, you try to figure out what the words meant when they were put down on paper. It’s the same thing with the law.”

Most American courts today rule by a “living constitution” idea: that the constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the times, taking on new meaning based on each generation’s understanding, Scalia said. But this principle threatens American democracy by affording too much power to the Supreme Court, he said.

“If the constitution is not an ordinary law but rather this empty bottle into which each generation is going to pour the liquid that it desires, why should the bottle be filled by nine unelected judges?” Scalia asked. “Why would you think these nine unelected members have their thumb on the pulse of people so they know what the evolving standards of decency are?”

Judges who do not adhere to originalism misuse the Constitution to legislate their own moral beliefs, Scalia said.

“If you think the proponents of a living constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. They want to bring you what a constitution is designed to bring, which is rigidity,” Scalia said. “They want society to do things their way now and forever, coast to coast.”
Scalia said his alternative both provided true flexibility and preserved the power of democratic legislation.

“My constitution is a very flexible one. There’s nothing in it about abortion and since there isn’t, it’s up to the citizens,” Scalia said. “Things change by democratic choice. The Supreme Court doesn’t have to abolish the death penalty. If the feelings of society come against it, it will be abolished by the states.”

Scalia also said that the Constitution protects freedom not through the Bill of Rights, but through provision for a structure of checks and balances.

“Every tinhorn dictator of the world has a bill of rights,” Scalia said. “With the right structure, you will preserve freedom even without a bill of rights. If you don’t have the right structure, even a bill of rights will not save you. They are just words on paper unless the structure of the government prevents the centralization of power in one party or one man.”

Scalia said the first half of his recent book defends originalism.

“There is no other objective criteria,” Scalia said. “You either adopt originalism or essentially you say to your judges, ‘Come govern us.’”

The second half of the book discusses the practices of textual interpretation, he said.
Several audience members asked Scalia how he determined the founders’ original intent, especially in situations where the constitutional terms were broad or unclear.

“You never heard me utter the words ‘original intent.’ I don’t care what their intent was. I care what it was that they intended,” Scalia said. “What the text means is what the people understood it to mean when it was adopted.”

As for broad terms like “due process” and “equal protection,” Scalia said their interpretation also depended on the meaning they were understood to have when first adopted. Beyond that understanding, Scalia said, legislation should be left to the democratic process, especially on moral issues like abortion and homosexuality.

“You do not want to constitutionalize everything because you take away democratic choice. Don’t constitutionalize the death penalty. Don’t constitutionalize abortion,” Scalia said. “The constitution doesn’t mean a bill of rights. It means structure.”