Scalia: Stick to Constitution's original meaning

RICHMOND, Va. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had some advice Friday for those who argue the Constitution is a "living document" that must change with the times.

"For flexibility, all you need is a legislature and a ballot box," the court's most senior member told a crowd at the University of Richmond on Friday.

Scalia sang a familiar refrain, arguing that democracy doesn't work unless the courts stick to the original meaning of the words found in the Constitution.

Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia is one of the court's few originalists, who believe in interpreting the words of the Constitution as they were meant when they were written.

"The Constitution says what it says and it doesn't say anything more," he said.

If the words can be interpreted beyond that, Scalia said, "you're allowing five out of nine hotshot lawyers to run the country."

"Unless the words have meaning and unless judges give them their fair meaning, democracy doesn't work," Scalia said during an address entitled "Do Words Matter?"

Scalia's remarks come several days after Justice Stephen Breyer made the opposite case to students at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville. Breyer said modern conditions — like the emergence of Facebook and the Internet — should inform justices when interpreting a constitution written in the 18th century.

After his own speech, Scalia signed copies of his book, "Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges," and was scheduled to teach a class on the separation of powers at the university's law school.

Scalia said the meaning of words can change over time — such as the evolution of the word "nimrod" from a great hunter in the Old Testament to an idiot thanks, the justice said, to Bugs Bunny's use of the word to describe Elmer Fudd.

Words also can be given a meaning that was never intended, Scalia said, using the court's forced protection of the habitat of endangered species as an example. The Endangered Species Act only prohibited the "taking" of such animals, he said, which later was interpreted to extend to the destruction of the forests where they live.

"I don't think the Congress would ever have supported an interpretation that extreme," he said.

Judges also are guilty of taking a vague or general term — such as "cruel and unusual punishment" — and giving it a meaning for which it was not intended — such as a prohibition on the death penalty, Scalia said.