Scalia and Breyer have often appeared together to spar cheerfully with each other about their starkly different views regarding the notion of a living Constitution.
“I’m hoping that the ‘ living’ Constitution will die,” Scalia said, adding that the controversial nature of recent confirmation proceedings is partly attributable to a notion that the Constitution evolves. “It’s like having a mini-constitutional convention every time you select a new judge.”
But Breyer, no stranger to Scalia’s views, struck back, saying that Scalia’s view could produce “rigidity” and interpretations that might not work for people living in the 21th century.
Link.
Of course, Breyer is correct that the existing Constitution may need to be changed to meet the needs of people living today.
But, also of course, the real issue is who should amend the Constitution--an unelected body of 5 lawyers acting as an ongoing constitutional convention with the power to propose and ratify amendments, or we the people through the Art. V Amendment process?
And if the Amendment process is too difficult to be workable, maybe we should amend Art. V to require a Constitutional Convention to be called every 20 years, as Jefferson suggested, to propose modern amendments for ratification.
What are some of your thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment