Scalia vs Breyer
Contemporary Issues in American Politics
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejects the notion of a “living Constitution,” arguing that the judges must try to understand what the framers meant at the time the text was written. (pg 92) Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer contends that in finding the meaning of the Constitution, judges cannot neglect to consider the probable consequences of different interpretations. In a YouTube video I watched a debate with Breyer and Scalia, the first question asked was regarding purpose and consequence. Breyer Stated that he agrees with text, history, tradition ,precedence, purpose , and consequence , however he feels people emphasize more on text, history, tradition, and precedence and try to avoid , purpose and consequence. However Scalia felt that purpose and consequence invite subjective judgment. He gave an example stating “ If the purpose of the statue is to protect civil rights and if you do not interpret it this limitation on it you will protect civil rights all the more, and therefore you should adopt that interpretation. The problem is the limitation in its statue adopted by the legislature is as much apart of its purpose as protecting is the general purpose of protecting civil rights.”( stated in video) He also argued that he doesn’t agree with peoples interpretation because they pick out the consequences they do and do not like and interpret it according to how they feel about it.
The next subject touched on in the debate was the subject of the Constitution as a living breathing document. Breyer gave some good points arguing that “ If you go back to the end of the 18 century to exam what the Founding Fathers thought say about the Commerce claus, they didn’t think about the internet, or television, and radio , or automobiles , etc, but they wrote a value into that claus, and that value is permanent. “ (stated from video) He stated its how can you apply that in a world that has changed with social
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejects the notion of a “living Constitution,” arguing that the judges must try to understand what the framers meant at the time the text was written. (pg 92) Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer contends that in finding the meaning of the Constitution, judges cannot neglect to consider the probable consequences of different interpretations. In a YouTube video I watched a debate with Breyer and Scalia, the first question asked was regarding purpose and consequence. Breyer Stated that he agrees with text, history, tradition ,precedence, purpose , and consequence , however he feels people emphasize more on text, history, tradition, and precedence and try to avoid , purpose and consequence. However Scalia felt that purpose and consequence invite subjective judgment. He gave an example stating “ If the purpose of the statue is to protect civil rights and if you do not interpret it this limitation on it you will protect civil rights all the more, and therefore you should adopt that interpretation. The problem is the limitation in its statue adopted by the legislature is as much apart of its purpose as protecting is the general purpose of protecting civil rights.”( stated in video) He also argued that he doesn’t agree with peoples interpretation because they pick out the consequences they do and do not like and interpret it according to how they feel about it.
The next subject touched on in the debate was the subject of the Constitution as a living breathing document. Breyer gave some good points arguing that “ If you go back to the end of the 18 century to exam what the Founding Fathers thought say about the Commerce claus, they didn’t think about the internet, or television, and radio , or automobiles , etc, but they wrote a value into that claus, and that value is permanent. “ (stated from video) He stated its how can you apply that in a world that has changed with social