P.AllanI’ve written a lot about the State lately.  Maybe old age is giving me a long-range perspective I didn’t have earlier.  I remember when . . . Never mind, I won’t bore you with reminiscing about how I had to walk to and from school in thigh-high snow drifts with white-out-condition winds fighting me every step of the way.

I suppose most grandfathers worry over the kind of country their grandchildren are growing up in.  I’m grateful that “The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all” (Psalm 103:15).  “All”, then, isn’t ultimately in the hands of politicians or court justices.  Still, what they do will profoundly determine what America will be like in years ahead—and the kind of society in which our children will be called to follow Jesus.

Yesterday Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized justices who view the Constitution as “living.”  If you think this is “getting into the weeds” stuff, think again.  The more justices see the Constitution as “living”, the less we become a nation of laws and the more we become a nation legally led by powerful men and women influenced by popular culture.  And that culture is almost never friendly to Christ and his people.

Scalia addresses Constitution, same-sex marriage in speech

By ADRIAN SAINZ

 

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Tuesday criticized judges who believe the Constitution is a “living” document, saying they amount to policy makers who are rewriting it and making moral decisions for the entire country about same-sex marriage and other issues. He also referred to this summer’s same-sex marriage ruling as “extreme.”

Scalia spoke to about 500 people at Rhodes College, where he was invited to deliver the school’s annual Constitution Day lecture. He is the longest-serving member of the Supreme Court. He was appointed by President Reagan in 1986.

In his speech, Scalia distinguished “originalism,” which calls for adherence to the original text and meaning of the Constitution when interpreting it, from the theory of a “living” Constitution, which views the document as one that evolves and changes over time without being amended.

“They’re not adhering to the text, they’re operating as policy makers,” Scalia, an “originalist,” said of believers in a “living” Constitution. “They’re not interpreting the constitution. They’re writing one, they’re revising one.”

Later he added: “What is it that I learned at Harvard Law School that makes me peculiarly qualified to determine such profound moral and ethical questions as whether there should be a right to abortion, whether there should be same-sex marriage, whether there should be a right to suicide?” he asked. “It has nothing to do with the law. Even Yale law school doesn’t teach that stuff.”

Scalia was among four dissenting justices in the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in June that cleared the way for same-sex couples to marry. Scalia said at the time that he was not concerned so much about same-sex marriage as “this court’s threat to American democracy.”

On Tuesday, he called the same-sex marriage ruling “the furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants.”

“Saying that the Constitution requires that practice, which is contrary to the religious beliefs of many of our citizens, I don’t know how you can get more extreme than that,” he said. “I worry about a Court that’s headed in that direction.”

Scalia also noted that only one sitting Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, is from the South: The others are from California, New York and New Jersey. He said believers of a “living” Constitution should be upset by that.

“You should be upset because these people are making a new Constitution and they are terribly unrepresentative of the country,” he said.

Scalia said judges who believe in an ever-changing Constitution are making it more rigid, not more flexible.

“It’s no use talking about abortion anymore. It’s just off the democratic stage,” he said. “No use arguing about it, coast to coast, now and forever, or unless the Supreme Court changes its mind. Is that flexibility?”

 

 

Please like & share: