Ann Arbor - The U.S. Constitution means the same thing today as it did when it was originally drafted and the idea that it should constantly evolve is flawed, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told an audience at the University of Michigan's Law School on Tuesday.
Listeners sardined into U-M's 1,100-seat Rackham Auditorium to hear the conservative justice say it's only in the last 40 years that Americans have become fond of the idea of a "living Constitution," one that is constantly evolving and must adapt.
"The Constitution isn't a living organism for Pete's sake," Scalia quipped, drawing an uproarious laughter from the audience. "It's a document."
Scalia, 68, was invited to speak last year but his trip was delayed because the Supreme Court case regarding the U-M Law School's use of racial preference in their acceptance methods was still pending.
In the case, the high court ultimately ruled 5-4 in favor of the school's method of accepting applicants. Scalia issued a blistering dissent of the acceptance method, arguing the school should instead lower its standards in hopes of attracting more minority applicants.
In a similar case last year, the court voted 6-3 to strike down the U-M undergraduate school's method of giving preference to minority applicants based on a point system. Scalia was one of the judges who voted against this method.
In addition to Tuesday's speech, Scalia met privately with U-M Law School students on Wednesday. He leaves today to return to Washington, D.C.
A former law professor at the University of Virginia and the University of Chicago, Scalia was nominated to the Supreme Court by former President Ronald Reagan in 1986.
Using his trademark humor and sarcasm, Scalia gave his reasoning for interpreting the Constitution in an "originalist" manner, the way he says 18th century society would have done.
"I don't have to prove it's perfect," Scalia said. "I just have to prove it's better than anything else."
But not everyone found Scalia's jokes funny. Outside, dozens of people protested, including members of the University of Michigan Stonewall Democrats, U of M Students for Choice and the Michigan Abortion Rights Action League.
Some Stonewall Democrats, such as Paul Rossen, said Scalia's blatantly anti-gay sentiment is atrocious. Scalia's dissent in a high court case last year that struck down a Texas law that made sodomy a crime was outlandish, said Rossen, a literature, science and the arts and music student at U-M.
"He has been consistently and viciously anti-gay," Rossen said.
"He said that if laws against sodomy were up for debate, then laws against bigamy, prostitution and bestiality would have to be questioned," which is ridiculous, Rossen said.
Protesters chanted slogans such as "Hey, hey, ho, ho, the Patriot Act has got to go."
Meanwhile, Scalia also disagreed with the notion that the Constitution is designed to be inflexible and used as a means to prevent progress.
"If you think the proponents of the 'living' Constitution are trying to give us flexibility, you're dead wrong. It's just the opposite," Scalia said.
Even those people who support the idea that the Constitution should consistently be re-interpreted shouldn't think that change always leads to greater freedom," Scalia said.
"Assuming you're an anarchist, why would you think the evolving Constitution is a one-way street?" Scalia said. "We can take away rights just as easily as we can grant them."
His speech was momentarily interrupted by a group of silent protesters who walked through the room carrying signs with slogans such as "Affirmative action, yes. Scalia, no."
Scalia waited for the protesters to leave and joked about whether the demonstration "is an accepted form of free speech here."
Some U-M students who listened to Scalia speak, such as second-year law student Jenny Marsh, said the chance to hear a Supreme Court justice speak was more than inviting.
After his nearly 45-minute speech, Scalia fielded questions from the audience.
"It's a great opportunity to hear him firsthand," Marsh said. "I don't agree with him and I find his interpretations to be frightening, but he's very clear and lucid, and he gives liberals something to challenge."
