2. Scalia has stated that he accepts the Amendments because they have altered the Constitution in accord with the original design for such alteration. This process, while clumsy, is entirely democratic and most importantly for Scalia, free from judicial meddling.

1. Yes, I agree — the bleep does sound more ‘damning’ than a ‘damn’ — it was the first thing I thought when watching. Clever of the ad-maker,yes, but highly irresponsible.

2. This morning on NPR’s All Things Considered, Nina Totenberg interviewed Justice Antonin Scalia (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89986017). One things he was quoted as saying caused me to pay a little more attention: “My Constitution is not living, it is dead.”

Now, I haven’t done the research on this, but I wonder how Scalia would respond to Rev. Wright’s statement you printed above: “This government lied about their belief that all men were created equal. The truth is they believed that all white men were created equal. The truth is they did not even believe that white women were created equal, in creation nor civilization. The government had to pass an amendment to the Constitution to get white women the vote. Then the government had to pass an equal rights amendment to get equal protection under the law for women.”

Does Scalia take issue with even the Amendments to the Constitution? By his logic, does he believe only white men should be allowed to vote? If it is written in an Amendment (and not by the founding fathers) is it therefore unacceptable? Or because it is an Amendment is it acceptable? If that is the case, how does that jive with his “dead” vs. “living” statement?

I am still in the dark on this, and welcome a more learned person on this topic to show me the light.