+MrTwodogshumping and the government must conform to it without question unless they can get the numbers for an amendment saying otherwise.

let me try to break this down so you’ll understand. In our American common law tradition, we follow court cases, instead of solely relying on statutory interpretation. Constitutional interpretation isn’t easy or simple. For 200 years, the court has looked at constitutional issues that aren’t in the Constitution like slavery, segregation, affirmative action, abortion, comic books, cellphones, healthcare, etc. And if you’re a Justice dealing with a case about those issues and your main concern isn’t about its constitutionality and more about what a bunch of dead white slaveholders, then maybe you shouldn’t be a Justice. And the Constitution isn’t easy to interpret. Take the 2nd Amendment for example. It doesn’t exactly say you have an individual right to own guns, but it’s implied as Scalia says. Or the 9th Amendment that says there are rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. What did the Founders mean about that and why exactly did they right that part in? You’re so gullible if you think interpreting the Constitution is easy.

It's easy. You just have to be smarter than a piece of paper. Yes it is living because we can change it. When working in the law there is no room for I feel like. This is why Sotamayeor should not be on the Supreme court.

Can you do better than state the obvious?

​@@KKuurus it's easy? LMAO

Exactly

@M Novalic you imposed your own interpretation with subjective preference. unfortunately the constitution is not black and white. The gray area alway requires subjective preference.

@M Novalic living Constitution is a EXTREMELY slippery slope. Those that do not use history are imposing more values and subjectivity than original intent.

@M Novalic if the law changes so of course the interpretation changes. But you shouldnt as judge change the law based just in your opinion.

@M Novalic sorry. I didnt read it right

All the words in legal context must be interpreted in the sense in which they are used in common parlance, unless otherwise specifically and categorically been.defined to be construed otherwise.

Hence, the word egg must be interpreted as a hen's egg and not an egg of any other animal since that's not how the word egg is used in common parlance and it hasn't been categorically defined to be construed otherwise.

@@vidyanandbapat8032 2As well regulated militia clause would like to have a word with you. The Constitution should be interpreted in the historical context that the legislator would've understood a word/phrase to mean at the time of ratification. A living constitution jurisprudence is too arbitrary.

At the same time it is somewhat vague, which allows it to stand the test of time. While it is vague, it is not living.

INCORRECT! Our Constitution was made to change based on needs!!!

Your description is inconsistent with the expressed intents of the framers. Ironic isn’t it

She showed that the question wasn't simple.

+oddist no, it was a simple yes or no question "is the constitution a living document". The correct answer is "no" but the fact remains that she dodged it.

She did answer it, she said it in the end. It's a living document. The Constitution was written for White Males, it has to evolve. Of course, if you are a white male, you wouldn't see why it should.

Some of you people commenting here have a serious English language comprehension deficiency

She answered the question beautifully. What she's saying is deep, but maybe too deep for you?

there is an amendment process lol

Tell that to women

Sele Leota 19th amendment

Our Founding Fathers never expected the Constitution would last as long as it did. There's a part in the Constitution that briefly mentions that if Amendments ever fail to appropriately solve issues, it make need to be rewritten as a whole. At what point does that suggest a "timeless framework"?

@@mickey_dbeh6105 what article section clause?

nail on the head!.. she's as Un-justice as they come..😕

+David Fleming Scalia will be remembered as a brilliant legal mind who squandered that mind on advancing an interpretative paradigm that is deeply flawed and wholly unconvincing to anyone with a working knowledge of American jurisprudential history and practice. Even among conservative legal theorists, Scalia's "originalism" is not as influential as many seem to think. So yes, he was an undeniably brilliant man with a remarkable flare for writing interesting dissents. But he will not be remembered as a justice of consequence for the Court in the long term.

+Steven Hunter Utter nonsense. "...an interpretative paradigm that is deeply flawed and wholly unconvincing to anyone with a working knowledge of American jurisprudential history and practice." Arrogant tripe. And you are the oracle of American jurisprudential history and practice? Are you a sitting appellate court judge or constitutional scholar? Have you published on these issues? If so, perhaps you can regale us with a history of the intellectual fraud that is substantive due process.

Whether you agree with his approach or not, I don't think you can argue it hasn't been influential. Scalia's 20+ year presence on the Court placed originalism in a position of prominence it had not been in for decades, during a time when many young judges were developing their own approach to the law. His stature among conservatives has also made originalism a much more important criterion when appointing Supreme Court Justices than it had been before. For example, does anyone believe that Donald Trump has a coherent judicial philosophy? I don't think so. Then how is it that he came to appoint an originalist to the Court? It's because Trump knew the importance of this issue within his political base. If Trump is able to appoint another Supreme Court Justice while the Republicans have a senate majority (since there is no judicial filibuster anymore), he will very likely be an originalist: a full third of the highest Court would be explicitly originalist in jurisprudence- Alito and Roberts not being quite originalist, but still very conservative.

Hopefully, your ashes, and Trumps, will be flushed down the toilet soon.

But, isn't that Constitutional in itself? Remember when the law prohibited inter-racial marriages? "Separate but not equal", etc. Oh God please, you are a white male, of course the Constitution in black and white was written for you, so you don't see why it should be interpreted as anything else.

You're an evil Trumptard, Ed.

It’s not a simple question

Ed Bradford You're parroting the standard conservative falsehood that liberals are driven by emotion. Sotomayor gives logical reasons for her point of view.

Kenni You're a racist!

You just described the conservatives on SCOTUS.

@John Henderson I would say that described the liberals on SCOTUS.

@@yellow4034 I can concede that point of the varying points of view about the authors. I can’t concede that the intent or meaning of the document changes over time without a ratified amendment. As an example. Take the 4th amendment and the Kyllo v. US and the Maryland v. King cases comparatively. The 4th protects The People from searches and seizures without a warrant specifically identifying what is to be searched and seized. It’s presumed, but not explicitly stated, that evidence of a crime must exist before a warrant can be issued and free person can be arrested. In the former, the court ruled in valor of Kyllo stating the police violated the 4th amendment through the use IR equipment mounted on planes to search homes for higher than normal heat signatures. In contrast the court ruled in favor of the state of Maryland regarding the seizure of a persons DNA and run it against cold cases files. Both case deal with the fact that law enforcement had no evidence a crime had been committed by that person as it relates to the search performed. The favorable opinion clearly violates the 4th amendment but the court justified the ruling by stating the search(DNA collection) was reasonable as a method of ID (even though they already knew who the prisoner was) and the use of that DNA evidence is unlimited in scope even if they check that DNA against crimes they had no evidence the prisoner committed. Of course I am omitting few details here but the point is the court played it a little loose with the term reasonable and the limits on government intrusion of personal privacy afforded to us by the 4th. This was done in the interest of putting one person in prison but the erosion of civil liberty is obvious. To do so purely to lower the bar on the burden proof is a great example of how words can be distorted and meanings can be reinterpreted years later. Scalia’s dissent on the Maryland v. King case is a great read if you had not read it before.

@@yellow4034 I am not very familiar with those case you noted And did a quick research effort. Generally speaking though, the commerce clause is an area of a lot debate over the years. In defense of my initial originalist perspective, I’d point to the original articles of confederation. They granted free reign to the states, unfettered by any central authority, as if they were independent nations. At the time, the 13 states decided to meet and discuss uniformity to inspire general prosperity amount the several states and these meetings resulted in the ratification of The Constitution in 1776. I believe the intent of the authors was to create an environment that allowed for the free flow of trade within the inter coastal water ways and enable states to conduct business their citizenship invested to conduct. They sought to achieve this by promoting cooperation between the states through equal compensation in the form uniform tariffs and taxes for certain good and services commonly traded and consumed at the time. If all states were compensated equitably than there was no impropriety or unfair capitalization or excess costs at ports of lading. This was good for the Union at a time when the states were post rev war and the nation was in its infancy. The key implication was equity for the states; not a regulatory power grab by the federal government although it did create the interstate space in which the federal government has jurisdiction. At the core of wickard v filburn is the agricultural adjustment act of 1938, the amendment to it in 1941, the government’s duty to inform, and a PSA made by the agricultural secretary. This post depression era / war time provision sought to influence the free market by regulating/limiting market supply of certain crops and penalizing farmers for excess crop production. The PSA by the secretary went against the wording of the provision and encouraged farmers to yield surplus crops by lifting they imposed penalties on surplus yield. This was in an effort to prevent food shortages post war and prevent conditions similar to the depression. The case dealt the imposition of the penalties against Filburn after they were suspended via that PSA. The court ruled the PSA superseded the written legislation and government could not impose penalties on an annual crop surplus it encourage farmers to grow. So it was not so much a case of what authority the federal government had but more a case post facto penalties. Basically ruling the government can’t speak out of the both sides of their mouth. Gonzales v Raich is a great example of lose interpretation of federal authority granted by the commerce clause in the effort of making it easier for government to enforce criminal law and prosecution. On the one hand marijuana is federally illegal and on the other is legal in the state of California. Who’s law is supreme? If you ask me, in strict interpretation of the intent of the commerce clause influence state prosperity, I’d say the states law on the matter is supreme. It’s not until that state tries to export marijuana could the federal government step in and say it now falls within its jurisdiction and subject to seizure.

@@yellow4034 Explicit power to regulate drugs: IMO the sole regulatory realm of drugs and drug use is primarily based on public safety concerns and not directly related to authority granted to the government by the governed (especially at a federal level). That end is better served if regulated by separate body for the purpose of consumer safety in so far as it relates doses or purity standards type of issues. The regulation of certain class drugs, for the preservation of state sovereignty, would be best handled at the state level as it relates to production and sale within the state exclusively. Only the trade of those substance, from or into the states, may be regulated by the federal authority to the extent of tariffs or taxes, to fund the federal budget, and for the purpose of ensuring equity among states. 14th amendment - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Brown v Board case was an excellent case and the SCOTUS decided correctly. The board’s policy of segregation absolutely violated the equal protections clause. No new amendment is necessary because the language is clear: “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”. There is no ambiguity. In fact, the state of Kansas action and district court of Kansas’ decision is a prime example of deliberately misinterpreting of The Constitution to push personal ideology. The SCOTUS has a job to uphold and protect the Constitution as it was written and intended; which is to say limit the authority of a central government and to protect the sovereignty of states and the liberty of citizens. Their job is NOT to devise or linguistically create grey areas in an effort of expanding Federal authority, eroding state sovereignty, stripping livery from the people or otherwise discriminating against free and legal citizens of the United States.

@@tf4332 you're both clowns

That is simply not true, because the original lens had non-voting women, slavery, 1/4 the size of the country, guns that didn't spray quickly...I can keep going all day.

(that's what we do and that's what judges are for)

you're entirely missing her point

care for an update on this statement?

And yet this conservative majority is using originalism to do exactly that.

Really? Her example of quartering troops was absolutely horrible and in no way shape or form addresses the true fallacy of the “living Constitution”!! Good God give me a break!! The Constitution is dead as a door nail, it means what it means nothing more!!

It’s not that simple

@@jonathanpolston4372 please explain how what I’ve just said is incorrect.

@@hoagied3783 originalism is simply an excuse to justify 18th century bigotry in todays world. Its effectively saying "well gay rights arent mentioned in the constituition therefore I can deny gay people rights I take for granted."

The very fact the constitution includes amendments shows it's a living document. 4 years after ratification, amendments were already being made. It wasn't until 1951 that the constitution was amended to limit how many terms a president can serve! In 1971 the constitution was amended that no citizen over 18 can be denied the right to vote based on their age. In 1992 it was amended to prevent congress from raising their own salaries instantly but instead requiring the pay change take effect at the start of the congress. Point being - things happen over time that the founding fathers couldn't have possibly foreseen. Like I said, 4 years after the initial constitution they already had to make amendments. Citing your first amendment right to freedom of speech is literally citing "the first change to the US constitution"

Idk Orwell

In other words elections would have no meaning or purpose since electors are being given that power directly.

She's not. At least in the traditional sense. Clinton and Obama paved the way to radicals like her to be put on the Court. Insane people who refuses to answer the question the debunk their entire theory. And we have to stop that insane movement.

And no they can't if the homeowner says NO! Can't she even read?

Textualism and precedent are I think the two biggest roles in defining law and "living constitution" I think her answer as "I don't use those words" is simple and fair enough

The most unintelligent thing I’ve ever heard is the constitution is a living document the whole point of the constitution is to be set in time and not change. I hate it when foreigners talk about our Constitution like they understand it.

@@shoutingatclouds6841 I think that it’s regrettable how you at least claim to be an American, yet have no idea how constitutions work, let alone your own.

Well, considering that’s she’s had more judicial experience than you and has more legal knowledge than you, I’d say that she does actually.

@@johndanielson3777 Your comment implies that anyone who has more judicial experience and legal knowledge than Ruth Cobb, the commenter, has business being on the supreme court, which is likely a very low bar. It would seem that you, yourself, do not think Sotomayor has much legal knowledge or judicial experience if you chose a random KZfaq commenter to compare her to.

@Money Stacker so which liberal interpretations are you talking about. Name cases.

They literally just make it up

There have been things in the Constitution that I don't understand why the point of or why the framers had it that way, but I've learned to accept that there's a reason they put what they put and we shouldn't veer too much off what they intended. They are better men than us. They took ideas of government that at the time were largely theoretical and put them in a constitution that is still here. That is why I accept much of what they put, even if I might not understand why it is what it is. That's also why it does kinda miff me when people act like they know better than the Framers, like with the Electoral College or the 17th Amendment.

The founders wanted the constitution to evolve from what they originally intended. Jefferson was for a strict interpretation of the constitution, meaning he thought that the constitution only allowed what was explicitly written and that the implied power was unconstitutional. However, he was in support of amending it to keep track with the changing times. This isn’t exactly the same because he didn’t write the constitution. But both Madison and Jefferson were strict constitutionalists, so it isn’t a huge leap to say that Madison as a “founder” would be for changing it with the times.

@@gabrielrousseau1923 I wouldn't go so far as to say they wanted the constitution to be changed (semantics?) but they definitely wanted the people to be able to, if there was a massive sea change in some area. change can be good if it is done with eyes wide open and with full disclosure and honesty. we haven't been getting that for many decades, least of all the last several years

Kinda

There is a big difference between going through the legal amendment process in order to change the Constitution, verses when judges amend the Constitution through interpretation.

It's essence cannot be changes, however some minor changes can be made like monetary threshold of 20 dollars or so might be amended to the one fit to the present times.

The act of amending is BECAUSE it isn’t a living document. If it were, we would need no new amendments for any issue whatever.

That's not an argument. WTF are you talking about? Did you even watch the damn video?

​@@MarzanWorldwide Yes I know what the word "unreasonable" means, but merely asserting that she is "unreasonable" is no more of an argument than if I asserted that you were a martian. What evidence do you have to demonstrate your claim that she is "unreasonable"? What is the basis for your claim? You are, after all, referring to a Supreme Court Justice and certainly, I'd presume, you'd hold a higher standard for claims regarding Justices than vague assertion. Particularly given the fact that her judicial reviews, and most of her law reviews prior to her Supreme Court appointment, are available for the public to read. So again,, what is the basis for your claim that she is "unreasonable"?

kg23771 that's not her job. Is the constitution is outdated, congress should ammend it not her

give me a break, and get off your knees bootlicker. you ignorant fools worship these people while they make rulings that take away our rights and the rights of our children.

So.... the conservatives?

@John Henderson No....that is what liberals think.

Lastly, Quartering troops in homes can and would likely be permited ny any red blooded American.

+bduhe219 What's the standard if not the original intent and meaning of the lawmakers? Also, are you American? :) I find that so many of posts with your ideology come from Europe, in which case I don't bother with it. :)

Zachary Holler original intent cannot be the standard, because 99% of cases brought up today are issues dealing with things that either did not exist 200 plus years go, or are social issues that were not taken into consideration then. all that said, applied intent of the law, as applied to a modern case set against a constitutional outline. a law, written 200 years ago, can have applied meaning to modern cases, even if the case is not a direct subject addresses at the time the document was written. original intent would mean you applied law today on subject matter and social morays of the time the document was written. and on that line of thought, it makes no sense. yes, i am an american. i look at applied law, as opposed to strict original intent, when making decisions on court cases of today.

I think 99% of the cases brought before courts today would benefit from a 200 year old perspective . :) Freedom didn't exist 200 years ago? Due process? The right to defend yourself? Natural law? Again, what's the standard of applied law if your starting point is not the originalist meaning of the law?

Zachary Holler tell me then, where does original intent factor into BROWN, ROE, MARRIAGE EQUALITY, and so on? there were never issues in the 18th or 19th century addressing these particular issues, but the court applied the 13th and 14th amendment to inclued these as cases that are uphelp, using the applied law to each of these.

Exactly, I refer you to the tenth amendment.

She’s a judge, really.

she didn't make an argument. she set up a hypothetical which very lucidly explained why interpreting the Constitution is extremely difficult and why reasonable can disagree as to its meaning. How is she weaseling? Lol

@@spencertaffet9458 because she's pretending she doesn't know what the word "quartering" (in the context of soldiers) means. Quartering troops means to have them billeted in your home.

She's giving an example. "Cruel and unusual" and "person", "sex", I mean these words all have interpretations which have also evolved. The scope of its apparent meaning is vastly questioned.

+Damion jackson Of course it is. Language is alive. How can something wrote in a language that is alive and constantly changing be dead?

If the Constitution can mean anything you want it to mean in order to get whatever outcomes you want, then it is a dead letter, because you are no longer obeying it. You are just doing whatever you want while falsely claiming to be obeying it.

bugbeemaine No. The words have meaning. You follow that meaning. But when it says, "The Congress shall have power...To lay and collect Taxes...and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" the word welfare meant something different prior to the industrial revolution or all of the modern advances in medical care. How can you not understand that?

Yes, words have meaning, and you go by the meaning of what the people who wrote it, debated it, and ratified it, understood those words to mean. You don't get to change the definition of words just to get the outcome you want. Otherwise, the Constitution means nothing.

+chip... You can always get a dictionary and law dictionary from the 18th century and resolve that problem. The Constitution either means what it says or there is no point in having a constitution.

Are you kidding or are you serious? She is stating how the idea behind constitutional words can be interpreted differently not there webster dictionary meaning. The supreme court is in place to try to interpret the meaning of the constitutional wording as it was meant when it was written and how it applies to today. The constitution and amendments were written by lawyers, for lawyers to interpret. That is why there are court cases.

TheVelluch But she never answered the question fully, she left it to "interpretation".

TheVelluch Sorry, but you're TOTALLY WRONG and obviously have NO understanding or have been grossly misinformed re the US Constitution and the STATED WRITTEN PURPOSES and LIMITED AUTHORITY of each of the three SEPARATE branches of government. The US Supreme Court's ONLY purpose and authority is the review of lower court's decisions and laws passed involving Constitutional Issues to determine IF these are IN ACCORDANCE with the INTENT and MEANING of the Constitution AS and WHEN written by the founders and approved by Congress and the States as required. The Supreme was NEVER given and has NO AUTHORITY to decide whether or not ANY part of the Constitution is no longer applicable. If it is believed that some part of the Constitution is no longer applicable or any other change needs to be made, an ADMENDMENT must be proposed, submitted before Congress and passed by 2/3 of it's members and then passed by 3/4 of the States. Do some research and study, otherwise you're arguing from exposed ignorance, no offense intended.

+Gary Evans You are a moron. Do you actually think that the shelves & shelves of law books are all based on the intent & meaning of a 250 year old document which was never meant to be comprehensive & wasn't even meant, by some of the Framers to have lasted this long? Are you actually saying that these brilliant minds have all been debating issues which you, Gary, can sum up in a few paragraphs? Perhaps we can just get rid of all remaining justices & just have a court of one. Gary. Offense intended.

LOL True

+Never Ending respect is rewarded with true justice. She is just an islama-obama spawn 😕

But at the same time, we should also keep the main ideas.

@@stanislausklim7794 - The problem is there was so much disagreement about the main ideas. That is what divided the founders into Federalists and Anti-Federalists. By the way, it's ironic that the Anti-Federalists were actually the stronger defenders of federalism. But they lost the war of rhetoric.

@@MarmaladeINFP Who cares if there were disagreements? It’s about what was eventually decided. Just think of applying your thought process to „normal“ laws to see whether the thought is reasonable. Should a law not be interpreted by its intended meaning just because it was not passed by 100% of the legislators? As you see such thinking would completely distort the whole democratic process.

Totally not racist