Time: Fri Feb 14 17:46:30 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA26123 for [address in tool bar]; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:08:52 -0700 (MST) by usr11.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA11418; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:04:41 -0700 (MST) by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA24033; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:04:34 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:36:14 -0800 To: John Curtis <jcurtis@cisco.com> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Antonin Scalia Hi John, May I have your permission to broadcast this to clients of the Supreme Law School? Your analysis is trenchant. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 03:05 PM 2/14/97 -0500, you wrote: > > Hmmm. Just finished an article by Antonin Scalia (yes, the > Supreme Court Justice) in the 2-10 copy of the National Review. > > Title is : Vigilante Justices > > The article is about the dying Constitution and the "evolving" > Constitution as the source of its demise. > > Scalia comes down strongly on the side of strict "original > intent", with minimal interpretation. However, some of his > writing borders on the bizarrre and makes you wonder, what, if any, > principles he is going to follow. > > > "...the record of history refutes the proposition that the evolving > Constitution will invariably enlarge individual rights. The most > obvious refutation is the modern Court's limitation of the > constitutional protections afforded to property. The provision > prohibiting inpairment of the obligation of contracts, for example, > has been gutted. I am sure that We the People agree with that > development; we value property rights less than did the Founders. > So also, we value the right to bear arms less than did the Founders > (who thought the right of self-defense to be absolutely fundamental), > and there will be few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is > held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard. > But this just shows that the Founders were right when they > feared that some (in their view misguided) future generation might > wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and > so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may > *like* the abridgment of property rights and *like* the elimination > of the right to bear arms; but let us not pretend that these are not > *reductions* of rights." [ * * denotes italics in orig.] > > > Phew! This guy is writing as a self-described conservative and > defender of "original intent". But he appears to just be gibbering > along, jumping to conclusions that "We the People" are happy about > property rights abridgement and will cheerfully abandon the 2nd > amendment. Is this guy a shill, a setter-up of false arguments > for more liberal judges on the court? Or is he so out-of-whack with > any liberty loving opinion that he embraces the positions of his > oponents? > > I guess I just come down to the basic, common sense proposition that > the Supreme Court is a bunch of politically appointed lawyers and > expect little to nothing from them. > > Very disappointing article. When the gun nuts (that Shotgun News > article) makes more sense than a "friendly" Supreme Court justice, > then something strange is happening. > > jcurtis > > > > > > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0 on Intel 80586 CPU ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail