http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa022701a.htm

Saw an interesting interview with Justice Scalia on 60 Minutes last night about his view that the US Constitution is a "dead document".

That does allow for the common sense approach to the law I have often held except that so much of the actual law embodied in various US Supreme Court and lower cases and some US and State statutes has very little to do with common sense and more to do with protecting various property and other privileges from the rights of others.

Also have some trouble with letting each state set its own laws on something like water conservation, air quality, oil leasing, nuclear waste dumping, immigration, abortion, prostitution, gambling, etc.

"Dead document" to me means exactly what was in the link you posted - it is "frozen" and meant to be interpreted with common sense, but not ingeniously twisted to create unique, novel and fashionable positions.

The Supreme Court has, by virtue of the "Commerce Clause" (and a couple others) and the Tenth Amendment, fairly well scuplted where the defining line between Federal and State authority reigns. Questions have arisen over the years, and that's where amendments to the Constitution have revised the boundary line.

Sometimes it's tough to recognize that the United States is really a union of fifty separate countries who have agreed that a common entity (the federal government) shall act on their behalf in the matters of defense, internaitonal diplomacy and a variety of matters. Just look at how State Government are organized and it's easy to see them as separate countries. That's how the Founding Fathers architected the original Constitution, based on the fact that each state was indeed sovereign over its turf except in those areas which they agreed would be satisfied by mutuality. Today we take having a common currency, a national exchequer, postage system and a host of other things for granted, which in the late 1700's and early 1800's didn't exist until the federal government exercised those Constitutionally-transferred responsibilities.

State's rights also keep the Federal Government from getting too big for its britches - the first step towards dictatorships. The Founding Fathers were very wary of having a monarch-equivalent from having unllimited power, and State's Rights have been a pretty good governor on the federal throttle.

Can states cede authorities and responsibilities to the federal? sure they can, by virtue of a Constitutional Amendment. The "noble experiment" called "Prohibition" in the early 20'th century is exactly such a situation. It also took another Amendment to reverse it and bring things back to a pre-Prohibition position.

Justice Scalia was right, in that judges are responsible to use a common sense approach to interpreting the laws, including the Constitution, as properly initiated by the Legislature and endorsed by the Executive. Even if it seems like a "dumb law," it is indeed THE LAW, and no judge has the right to discount it if THE LAW doesn't expressly provide for such judicial discretion. To do so would indeed by "unconstitutional."

I'm getting a kick out of watching the evolution of the European Union, as many of the federal merging headaches endured on this side of the Atlantic 200+ years ago are now occurring in Europe. How they handle establishing a federal entity will be interesting.

I saw the interview with Judge Scalia . I think he makes a lot of sense . :bigthumbsup:

His interview with Tim Russert was on recently and I found it interesting, informative and on a few subjects, humorous.