Last week I posted about the various ways to interpret and apply The Document That Is The Constitution. Justice Antonin Scalia provided a wonderful follow-up with this story. Apparently anyone who thinks that the interpretation and application of the Constitution must adjust to social changes is an "idiot." In case you were wondering. Or worried. Or curious.
For the record, Scalia bills himself as an originalist (although he may be more accurately described as a Practice of the Time-ist). Meaning we apply the Constitution as it was originally written and intended. Fantastic. Only white, male, landowners (about 10% of the population at the time The Document was drafted) should be permitted to vote. Slavery runs throughout The Document, so maybe those sweatshops and sex slavery rings are just dandy. Women would certainly not be included in basic citizenship rights and obligations, let alone positions of power, so out goes the titillating Hillary-Condie Prez matchup.
Originalism, my ass. Talk about maintaining an outmoded status quo. Just remember - if you don't think like Scalia, you're an idiot.
CHANGES
I've had some plans up my sleeve for a few months.
This blog is moving soonish to breathingmoss. Some posts are already cross-posted, but I'm still working out formatting and such. I'll post when I'm all done here.
This blog is moving soonish to breathingmoss. Some posts are already cross-posted, but I'm still working out formatting and such. I'll post when I'm all done here.
I love options. Having three distinct (and equally valid) first names is the kind of pluralist I like to be. The only downside is that it seems like I don't know my name when I stammer upon introducing myself.
I am who I say I am. But I'm also a couple other people too.
I am who I say I am. But I'm also a couple other people too.
Twitter Updates
Labels
- anticipator (4)
- blessed life (38)
- career (3)
- civix (9)
- Family Stories (15)
- fire (10)
- gets its own tag (1)
- health (5)
- Important (4)
- In Love (12)
- introspections (22)
- KidKnowings (5)
- Knowings (16)
- links (22)
- Making Home (7)
- media (13)
- memory (13)
- poly (9)
- Queer Kweer (5)
- raw (1)
- Rose Colored Glasses (7)
- Seen/Heard (10)
- self-ref(s) (10)
- still a student (2)
- Stuff I Likey (7)
- Sweet Music (2)
- tagd (2)
- Utah (13)
- weird (2)
- whining (3)
- wonderings (3)
- Xplorin' NW (14)
1 comment:
It's interesting how "orginalists" like Scalia seem to have the "divine" ability to not only know what the plain words (almost without context) of the Constitution mean, but they also seem to clearly "know" the intentions of the writers of the document.
Of course, if one reads the plain words of the Constitution, one doesn't find the word "corporation" in it anywhere, and yet the conservatives (originalists like Scalia among them) have given personhood to this legal entity. An immortal legal entity to which the Supreme Court’s conservative justices gave birth, and have been nurturing and protecting to a point that is threatening the very fundamental structure of our republican democracy. I would love to hear Scalia say that Corporation is not a person protected under the plain text (and the original intent) of the Constitution. But of course, I am not holding my breath for logical consistency to flow from conservative mouths.
I guess originalism (Scalia calls it philosophy...I guess, cow dung is philosophy now) is a handy diversion when you want arrest societal progression, keep the masses in the darkness, and perpetuate the old status quo that has worked so damn well for the business class.
Post a Comment