DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**acceraStoof** · 02-17-2006, 11:34 PM

No, Scalia has barely gone far enough.

I believe he refers to people who twist phrases in the Constitution to mean something very different from what the people who wrote and ratified it, intended. Obvious examples are the Kelo case which presumed that governments could take property for PRIVATE usage instead of the public usage allowed by the 5th amendment, and the U.Mich case where the SUpremes ruled that racial discrimination was OK in certain college admissions, and even that a timetable for phasing it out was somehow constitutional. There are many more examples.

Most of such twists, are attempts to give the Federal government far more power than the Framers ever intended. Scalia is against doing that. For this reason, he is a classic conservative. And as it happens, he is NOT a judicial activist, since the conservatism he espouses, happens to match perfectly the conservatism inherent in the Constitution itself.

02-17-2006, 11:34 PM	#8
acceraStoof Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 516 Senior Member	No, Scalia has barely gone far enough. I believe he refers to people who twist phrases in the Constitution to mean something very different from what the people who wrote and ratified it, intended. Obvious examples are the Kelo case which presumed that governments could take property for PRIVATE usage instead of the public usage allowed by the 5th amendment, and the U.Mich case where the SUpremes ruled that racial discrimination was OK in certain college admissions, and even that a timetable for phasing it out was somehow constitutional. There are many more examples. Most of such twists, are attempts to give the Federal government far more power than the Framers ever intended. Scalia is against doing that. For this reason, he is a classic conservative. And as it happens, he is NOT a judicial activist, since the conservatism he espouses, happens to match perfectly the conservatism inherent in the Constitution itself.
	Quote