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