 How Can You Laugh at a Time Like This? is a Dream Machine SiteThe Dream Machine --- The Imagination of the World Wide Web |
| How Can You Laugh at a Time Like This? is a Dream Machine Site The Dream Machine --- The Imagination of the World Wide Web |
| Home | Current Column | Previous Columns | Other Sites | Libertarian | Feedback |
Among his comments was the old news that he regards the Constitution as "not living but dead...or, as I prefer to put it, enduring." He goes on to state that the Congress and the state legislatures, not the courts, have the duty to change our laws in line with society's "evolving standards of decency." The Constitution, he avers, means today exactly what it meant when it was written. We, of course disagree. Since the Constitution then...and now...means exactly what the Supreme Court SAYS IT MEANS..his statement is completely circular! For example, the original Constitution embraced slavery, despite the apparent...to the casual non-Supreme Court Justice observer...contradiction with its other stated principals. Eventually it was amended to eliminate this "problem," but not before a gruesome civil War was fought. Up to that time, the Court consistently held that slavery was entirely within the constitution. Scalia has no problem with this. But he consistently ignores the fact that the Supremes COULD have interpreted...at any time...the "originally written words" to mean that slavery was completely outside the bounds of securing "Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" as clearly stated in the preamble. In order to rule as they did, it was necessary for them to regard slaves perhaps as non-human...a common sentiment in the times, at least by White men...but certainly not part of "ourselves." "Plain language," it seems, isn't quite so easy to interpret as one might think. But Scalia has no problem with this.
He went on...using the death penalty to illustrate his arguments...to point out that, traditionally, the state was regarded as an instrument of God. Thus, the biblical imprecation that vengeance must be left to the Almighty could...and SHOULD...be interpreted to mean that the state can justifiably carry out God's will. So, chopping off the heads of, passing high voltage through the bodies of or injecting toxic chemicals into the veins of condemned humans can NEVER be considered "cruel and unusual punishment," as forbidden by the eighth amendment. Scalia decries the fact that this is no longer regarded as fact in western societies and lays the "fault" at the feet of democracy! That's right. He feels that when the people are elevated to the level of masters of their own destiny, the state is no longer considered to have higher moral authority than the individual. Furthermore, this leads to "civil disobedience," in violation of the words of no less than Saint Paul, the founder of the Holy Roman Catholic church, to which Scalia belongs.
Finally, as if to mock our saying that the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance are no big deal, Scalia asserts that the government's constant insertion of the word "God" into government functions is what keeps us from becoming completely amoral. Our citizens understand...unlike those Godless Europeans...that "government carries the sword as 'the minister of God.'"
We can see no clearer indication of why we have chosen to be libertarians rather than conservatives. By embracing religiosity...principles (?)...rather than common sense, men like Scalia show just why mixing church and state is so Godawful scary (pun intended). It also illustrates why we come down so very hard on those capital "L" Libertarians that wield their "principals" like scimitars, cutting down the opposition with blankly contradictory statements like "interpreting the Constitution as it was written"...whatever that might mean in the Wonderland of Libertarian Party politics. Perhaps all it means is that the LP is NEVER going to win any elections of significance, something that "pure" libertarians don't find objectionable anyway. (i.e. If government is bad, why participate in it?)
This does not mean that we are letting liberal Supreme Court Justices completely off the hook. They have repeatedly shown...by wild interpretations of Constitutional writings and fanciful thinking as to the "evolving standards of decency" in our society...that they are just as capable of non-sequiters as their conservative brethren. They too wring their hands about democracy, lamenting the languid pace of change that ensues. So they invent new "rights"...like the "right to privacy"...to further their personal agendas. But, that is a subject for another column.
Our firm conviction that democracy is the worst political system, unless it is compared to anything else, is what leads us to the conclusion that religion...except for lip service to believers...MUST be kept entirely out of government. That is why we feel that Israeli "democracy" is a sham, that there is no solution to the Palestinian Question other than a united secular state.
Scalia, by the way, is not quite as dangerous or scary as he might be. By eschewing the liberal tendency to insert personal morality into his decisions, he rocks the boat much less than, say, an Ayatollah would. While he rebukes democracy, he nevertheless follows its principles in his duties as Supreme Court Justice.
Just don't elect him, or anyone like him, to high legislative or administrative office!
Talk to you later...
Visit Write your Congressperson or Senator and DO IT!
Visit Write your Congressperson or Senator and DO IT!
...the best independent ISP in the Twin Cities
The Dream Machine --- Network Services
A newspaper near you.