Thinking as a Hobby

Get Email Updates
Email Me

Admin Password

Remember Me

3476930 Curiosities served
Share on Facebook

The Constitution, Religion, and Plasticman
Previous Entry :: Next Entry

Read/Post Comments (6)

I really wish this man wasn't on the Supreme Court.

Courts have gone too far to keep religion out of public schools and other forums, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.

Yes, we've added religious slogans to our coins and bills, made it our national motto, continued to open session of Congress with prayer, and never elected a President (at least in the modern era, and as far as I know) who wasn't openly Christian.

Although the Constitution says the government cannot "establish" or promote religion, the framers did not intend for God to be stripped from public life, Scalia said Sunday at a religious ceremony.

Yeah, notice how we've "stripped" religion from public life. Good grief.

The rally-style event about 50 miles south of Washington drew a lone protester, who silently held a sign promoting the separation of church and state.

Well at least there was one voice of reason there.

But now for the most surreal quote of the day:

Scalia used the event to reiterate criticisms that the Constitution is being liberally interpreted.

"It is a Constitution that morphs while you look at it like Plasticman," he said.

Now I've heard lots of things said about the U.S. Constitution, but I've never heard it compared to Plasticman.

Scalia, presumably, does not want the Constitution "interpreted". And what's the most disturbing thing about such a statement? It's his friggin' job to interpret the Constitution.

His predecessors interpreted our Constitution to legalize the sale and ownership of human beings. Was the problem that they weren't taking the wording literally? Are we taking it completely literally now?

You see the problem here. The Constitution is a living document. It has to be. The function of the judicial branch is to make those interpretations. So to say that interpretations of the Constitution shouldn't change over time is patently ridiculous, and extremely disturbing, especially coming from a Supreme Court Justice.

Read/Post Comments (6)

Previous Entry :: Next Entry

Back to Top

Powered by JournalScape © 2001-2010 All rights reserved.
All content rights reserved by the author.