"I don’t care what their intent was. I care what it was that they intended." That LITERALLY says, "I don't care about x, I care about x." I know English grammar pretty well, but even that is needless here, because, again, Scalia negatively AND affirmatively referenced the same phrase: LOGICALLY, A=/=Not A.


Publishing on the internet is still publishing, sure, but posting a comment on an online forum is no more "publishing" than is writing on the wall of a bathroom stall (I wish that analogy did not work as well as it does. ) If posting something on online forums were the same as publishing it millions of people would not be pissing themselves because Facebook claims exclusive right to anything and everything ANYONE posts there.

As to the Second Amendment argument, sure, ICBMs are prohibitively expensive, but if you check I believe you will find weapons grade fissile material is VERY tightly restricted. ICBMs are also chock full o' classified technology. According to Wikipedia, the Peacekeeper has been decommissioned and lists for $70 million, but even if someone with that much cash convinced Boeing or Martin to sell them one they could expect a prompt visit (and almost certain arrest) by the NSA, FBI and probably half a dozen other federal agencies.

The amendment codifying the right to keep and bear arms does so in terms of a "well regulated militia," opening wide the door to regulation. It also does NOT explicitly codify an INDIVIDUALS right to arms; I would argue that is implied, but one could argue the opposite, and that is the point: SCALIAS argument leaves no room for the other one, nor for much of his job.


Using ones own body as evidence against them is self-incrimination in its most basic form; it is LITERALLY incrimination by oneself. Probable cause does not change that logically even if it has been held to do so legally (though, last I checked, sobriety tests can always be refused, with or without probable cause, though doing so at a traffic stop results in license forfeiture most places; driving understood to be a state licensed privilege, not a right.) Even were that not so, however, it is practically impossible to prove a woman had an abortion unless her body is examined, which would violate her right to security in her person and property (the elusive "right to privacy" conservative Constitution scholars inexplicably insist they cannot find.)

The Constitution is obviously national law, by definition, but just because it does not explicitly state a persons car is secure against unreasonable search or seizure, even though the Framers COULD not have understood "effects" to mean "automobile," does not mean it is OK for the FBI to search anyones car for any reason or none any time they want. The meanings of words change over time (though I am on record they should do so as rarely as practical, and only for good cause,) and thus the Constitution is every bit as much alive as the language in which it is written. If the Framers wanted a dead rather than living and evolving document they should have written in Latin (and most surely unerstood that quite well.)


A majority of Framers were ultimately convinced an explicit Bill of Rights would be construed to protect ONLY specifically stated rights; that is the Ninths Amendments whole point. That also destroys Scalias argument the Constitution means no more nor less than what the Framers understood its specific language to mean, because THE FRAMERS clearly disagreed, else they would not have feared an explicit Bill of Rights would let government violate any and all unstated rights.

Yet that "paranoid fringe" you reference is also known as "the legislatures of 8/13 orginal states." Even the majority of the nine states who first ratified (and thus enacted) the Constitution did so only no the guaranteed condition of a bill of rights: The Constitution would not EXIST without the Bill of Rights, because a majority of states said outright they would reject it in that form. A majority may be radical, but never fringe; it defines the mainstream.


Y'know, it is odd you style Scalias job as preventing Congress and the president from exceeding their constitutional authority, because the Constitution says NOT A WORD about the SCOTUS reviewing federal law. Under Scalias "the Constitution must be understood only explicitly, and its explicits words only as I say" logic, any law Congress duly passed and the president signs would be absolute. That moots Scalias whole argument (which, in his typical Through the Looking Glass fashion, is his ultimate aim: Invalidating judicial view, and thus his job.)

Indeed, even though James Madison was the Constitutions main author, and even though it means precisely what he said precisely as he understood it, the SCOTUS quickly concluded THE CONSTITUTIONS MAIN AUTHOR VIOLATED IT when he witheld Marburys judicial appointment. The only complexity was that the Constitution does not explicitly EMPOWER the SCOTUS to declare anything unconstitutional, but, as we all know, the SCOTUS ruled it has that power anyway. Twice over, in fact; it ruled Madison violated the Constitution he wrote, but further ruled the federal law letting Marbury seek remedy from the SCOTUS was ALSO unconstitutional because it increased SCOTUS authority beyond constitutional limits. John Marshall could out-Scalia Scalia on his best day, which was about 15 years ago.

It suits Scalia to say the SCOTUS cannot rule gay marriage and abortion bans unconstitutional, but satisfying Antonin Scalia is not the standard for constitutional law (really.) The Constitution does not say a word about marijuana either, and two states legalized it this year: Is there any doubt how Scalia would rule in a CO or WA case challenging the federal marijuana ban? The Constitution actually DOES explicitly leave elections to the several states: When the FL Supreme Court accordingly ruled there should be statewide recount in 2000, did Antonin Scalia accept that ruling, which the Constitution explicitly makes absolute, or overturn it?

This is not about the Constitution, it is about Scalia yet again trying to exploit and invert it to somehow establish his parochial world view as federal law. If he wants to do that he should run for Congress or president and THEN hope he can fool the SCOTUS into believing his unconstitutional creations are constitutional.