One could very easily argue that the original intent of the constitution was to expand the federal government. In this context, Scalia very much fits as an 'original intent' advocate (and doesn't harm his establishmentarian credentials in any way).This is why most "original intent" supporters are not to be taken seriously. "Original intent" almost always ends up being used - wittingly or unwittingly - as nothing but a diversionary (and ultimately empty) fig leaf for the usurpation and corruption of the Constitution. Antonin Scalia easily serves as Exhibit A in the case for this.
For one thing, "original intent" (as deployed by Scalia, et al.) diverts attention away from the fact that all SCOTUS "Justices" are thoroughgoing Establishmentarians - else they would never have been nominated (let alone approved) for seats on SCOTUS in the first place. This is what underpins Scalia's observation that "justices aren’t swayed by partisan political spats, and that he doesn’t care which party controls the White House." He is very probably correct about this. After all, why should they be swayed by such? They are creatures of the Establishment, and the Establishment wins either way. The "partisan political spats" referred to by Scalia are just gimcrackery.
And the spats between "original intent" and "living document" partisans are exactly the same kind of gimcrackery. The "original intent" vs. "living document" debate serves only to obfuscate the fact that SCOTUS does NOT have any business doing the vast bulk of what it does in the first place. If (most of) the "original intent" crowd were really serious about it, they would recognize & acknowledge that the Supreme Court was never "originally intended" to be the ultimate or final arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional. But they don't - because they are NOT really serious about it. Scalia and (most) "original intent" supporters have use for "original intent" only insofar as it does not conflict with their essential Establishmentarianism. When it does conflict, they will piss on the Constitution every time.
Thus, the "original intent" vs. "living document" debate is merely one more "partisan political spat" (to echo Scalia's own words). It is just another case of one faction of the Establishment hissing & spitting & clawing at a rival faction of the Establishment. Like the "left vs. right" or "Republican vs. Democrat" paradigms, the "original intent vs. living document" argument is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" ...
(And in case it wasn't clear in the above, I am NOT talking about all advocates or advocacies of "original intent" - only most of them. In particular, I am talking about understandings of "original intent" that tacitly & implicitly accept the alleged "supremacy" of the Supreme Court. If you are a supporter of "original intent" who understands & rejects the profound betrayals that occurred with Madison v. Marbury and other such "landmark" SCOTUS decisions, then you are NOT one of the people I am talking about. Antonin Scalia and others may like to gabble about "original intent" - but he and they are NOT your friends or allies.)
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us