©2005 National Cable Satellite Corporation
In a lively little talk, Justice Scalia smoothly explains the two main competing modes of interpreting the Constitution, though it's quite clear on which side he comes out. Forget about terms like "activist" or "strict constructionism." The debate is about "originalism" vs. the flexible "living constitution," even if judicial liberals would not call it that. This is what the real battle by liberals and conservatives over Supreme Court nominees is all about.
Scalia shows why the 'living' constitution approach is so seductive -- the constitution can be made to agree with anything you think! He also makes "originalism" respectable again, noting that such an approach has dominated court thinking until just the past 50 years.
Still, Scalia doesn't satisfactorily explain how the 'living' constitution approach came into being or why, in some rare cases, it might be appropriate to diverge from that approach. While I lean toward his approach, I consider myself a 'soft' originalist who wants a bit more flexibility. There have been times when a truly originalist approach would have let open sores on the body politic exist for far too long. Nonetheless, this is an interesting talk for Scalia supporters and detractors alike.
A clear explanation of his "Originalist" interpretation of the constitution and why he doesn't think the "living constitution" interpretation is correct or safe for our society. Clear, concise, lively and informative.
I would not generally agree wit Scalia but I will acknowledge that this is a very logical presentation that gave me a different perspective on judicial activism.
Wether or not you agree with Justice Scalia's views on constitutional interpretation, this speech is very insightful, and gives good, solid basis for understanding "Original Interpretation." Scalia leaves out and even snubs the typical rhetoric that accompanies heated debates on the subject, and give a calm, orderly, well-built case for his position.
This is a great overview of the "originalists" interpretation of the constitution. Plus, Scalia is such a marvelous and entertaining speaker, it makes the entire listen worthwhile. He has a great sense of humor which helps to make this subject easier to understand. Whether or not your agree with originalists, you will enjoy listening to one of our most colorful Supreme Court justices speak!
I would guess that most Americans conclude that the US Supreme Court is something that it is not, according to Justice Scalia. This is a worth while hour regardless of one's politics to learn more about how our highest court makes decisions.
How he suggests clearly that it is in the hands of the people in the states to pass laws on a wide range of topics and that the constitutional questions need to be reserved to protect the minority, not the majority. I also was struck that he said that he has ruled against his own moral compass because it was his duty to do so,
Starting after the conclusion of the introductions to the end of the speech.
Associate Professor at 4 yr. university in educational history and educational administration. Love reading historical books of all genres!
I am not a fan of Antonin Scalia positions generally, but I did enjoy listening to his own description who he is as a justice of the Supreme Court. It is easy to learn from him, and I assume from this short speech with questions and answers that he is considered to be an accomplished teacher of law.
I would suggest that this is a good listen for all people of all political persuasions.
Business Physicist and Astronomer
Listen with prejudice and you'll learn about why Scalia is who Scalia is. And am I glad he is who he is!
Yes, worth it. This is especially valuable if you believe the US Constitution is a "living" document. Every high school civics teacher NEEDS to listen to this shot speech.
Yes, he is very well spoken and actually very likeable.
Him telling people to stop taking pictures.
there weren't scenes. It was just him giving a speech at a school
Justice Scalia very eloquently sums up the differences between those who believe the Constitution is fluid (living) and those who believe in Original intent and hold the Constitution was designed to be modified, not reinterpreted.
His insight and explanations show considerable wisdom and insight. I found more practical as well as theoretical insight in this talk than in a semester of Constitutional Law class.
There are no listener reviews for this title yet.
Report Inappropriate Content