Antonin Scalia - Text And Intent

Why aren't we allowed to have a president that speaks and understand like this man? Where is the intellectual right? Why do we get Trump, Bush, Romney, McCain, Cruz, etc? Where's the constitutionalist? The intellectuals that understand economics? Ron Paul was the closest fit to all of that and the Republican party didn't want him. Why? Can we get a well educated constitutionalist as president for the love of Christ?

When do we get the FULL Unedited version of this interview??

I think he is saying there was not a single intent to the passing of a law. There is only the language that the legislators finally agreed upon. That language does have an expressed intent, but that is different than the various intentions of individual lawmakers.

I think he means what these words generally meant at the time, particularly in legal circles.

Anti-federalists do not seek "no federal power." Just extremly small federal power. In my understanding of history, they sought something in between the constitution and the articles of confederation. I don't know if you've ever read the anti-federalist papers, but they lay out almost exactly all of the problems we are having today.

One more question, do you believe in originalism? I came to a conundrum with that a couple of days ago and was looking for a second opinion.

That's the one issue. I'm working on that one.

Keep in mind, too, that Hong Kong's currency is regulated by a legislative body. I'm not sure of the exact system, but i beleive you need some kind of permit to do so. Back to what you were saying about the legislative body, I am not opposed to that as long as they stay within the powers given to them in the constitution (save borrowing, issuing currency, mail, and defining what "war" means in the declaration clause).

In my perfect world, the only function of the federal government would be to uphold the law and run the military. Though private armies have worked for many civilizations, it would never happen in America.

Always good to hear another perspective. Thanks for sharing.

You've got to interpret the law for what it says, not for what it was intended to say, because it's very hard to figure out intent. As he says, statements of legislators can offer different interpretations, so which one is helpful?

How does an “originalist” manage through a case involving, for example, two constitutional principles, which—to a certain extent—are consistent, but—at a certain point—become conflicting (i.e., liberty and equality)?

I find it odd that for 2 hundred years the Constitution was interpreted in favor of individual freedom and now it's more for the interest of the government.

I just want you all to know that compared to the runaway supreme court here in Israel, the US court is a model of strict construction. And the judges aren't even selected by the peoples' representatives.

I gathered that the intent of lawmakers makes no difference. If a law is passed, but the lawmaker tries to construe a separate meaning or extract a different interpretation, it doesn't matter because we are governed by the laws, not by how the lawmakers feel about them. The law is ink on paper not the words of a politician.

No, I didn't mean that. I meant that they should interpret the law as it was meant during the time in which it was written, such as the example I gave.

I think it would work that way too. Only problem is that the judges on there are largely known by their political ideologies or perceived ideologies. Maybe they could each vote on a possible nominee and then it be submitted to the senate for approval. Even if that last wrinkle couldn't be ironed out I feel that's better than someone often elected based on their political ideology nominating judges.

Read Scalia's book. He's a great American.

I love listening to all justices from Scalia, to Breyer, to Bader-Ginsburg, to Gorsuch, to Sotomayor, and now Coney-Barett. The wisdom and judicial knowledge they have is truly above partisan politics, and all humble, too! The only justice I find unfit for the role is Kavanaugh. Listening to his confirmation hearing and interviews is like listening to an arrogant college fraternity jock. Reading his decisions, especially next to other justices' writings especially the conservative ones, makes his look like a high school english essay! No wonder only Gorsuch joins him in writing his opinions. Most of the time, he joins someone else or writes opinions by himself 🤣

Yes, it says that Congress cannot pass laws about it or prevent people from following a religion. And what Jefferson meant was essentially to not have a national religion like what had happened in Europe for a couple hundred years after the Reformation. What it has come to mean is that you should not make arguments on the basis of religion and you should not make decisions based on your religious beliefs.