Supreme Court Justice Scalia: “The Constitution is Dead, Dead, Dead”

30 Jan

English: Supreme Court Associate Justice Anton...

Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia testifies before the House Judiciary Committee’s Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee on Capitol Hill May 20, 2010 in Washington, DC. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently spoke at the Southern Methodist University (SMU) law school.  During his speech, he said that the federal Constitution is “not a living document:  It’s dead, dead, dead.”

That statement stirred some controversy.  I’ve received several email from readers who cite Scalia’s comments as proof that “even the Supreme Court now admits that the Constitution is dead and of no force or effect!

These readers don’t understand that Scalia is exactly right.  It’s unfortunate that the debate over the reading of the Constitution has fallen into a “living Constitution” vs. “dead Constitution” dichotomy.  It’s hard to fight for a “dead Constitution”.  But that’s the fight we should wage.

Those who argue that the Constitution is a “living” document, argue that the meaning of the Constitution changes or evolves with time and context.  The people who favor the “living Constitution” concept are those who want rule by man (themselves) rather than rule by law (the Constitution).  Under the pretext that the Constitution is a “living” document, the Constitution can mean anything anyone in a position of power says it means at any time.  It can mean one thing today, another thing tomorrow and a third thing next week.

The meaning and effect of various sections of the Constitution can be lawfully changed–but only by means of the amendment process found at Article V.  I.e., if 2/3rds of both Houses of the Congress deem it necessary, they can propose a new amendment to ratified by either 3/4ths of the State legislature or 3/4ths of State conventions of the people.  These requirements make it very difficult to amend the Constitution.

Those liberals and treasonous whores who want more power and find the Constitution to be an impediment to their ambitions (exactly what the Constitution was intended to be), know that the Amendment process is too difficult to achieve.  They can’t easily change and amend the actual words of the Constitution.

Therefore, they seek to violate the terms of the Constitution by unilaterally changing the meanings and definitions of the words of the Constitution without input from the State legislatures or the People.  The words remain as originally written but new definitions are ascribed to the original words.  Such unilateral and unconstitutional attempts to change or deny the original meaning of the Constitution are acts of treason.  The proponents of such acts have tried to disguise their treason with the claim that the Constitution is “living” document subject to continuous reinterpretation and redefinition by those in positions of power.

Scalia, on the other hand, is an outspoken conservative and a self-described “textualist” who believes the exact text and words of the Constitution should be interpreted by their literal and original meanings.  In other words, Scalia correctly believes that the meaning of the words of the Constitution must mean exactly the same thing today as they did when the document was first ratified in A.D. 1788 (except, of course, for whatever Amendments have since been lawfully added).

In Scalia’s view the Constitution is “dead, dead, dead” in the sense that it’s meaning is fixed, fixed, fixed. The Constitution is “dead” in the sense that the meaning of the Constitution is not lawfully subject to continuous meddling and reinterpretation by those who advocate the “living Constitution”.   Scalia insists that the Constitution is “dead, dead,dead” in order to prevent liberals and treasonous whores from arbitrarily changing the meanings and definitions of the words in the Constitution.

It’s unfortunate that the liberals favoring continuous reinterpretation of the Constitution were clever enough to frame their argument under the guise that they favor the “living Constitution” (that they can reinterpret and amend at will) while the conservatives were left to argue that the Constitution is “dead, dead, dead“.  Everyone automatically favors the idea that the Constitution is “living”.  Everyone automatically disfavors the idea that the Constitution is “dead”.

But, regardless of how the argument was framed, if you believe the meaning of the Constitution is and must remain fixed, then you’re obligated to support the idea that the Constitution is “dead, dead, dead” = “fixed, fixed, fixed“.

Therefore, those of you who are troubled by Scallia’s statement can relax.  Insofar Supreme Court Justices go, Scalia’s one of the good ones.


Posted by on January 30, 2013 in Constitution, Definitions, Treason, Values


Tags: , , , , ,

25 responses to “Supreme Court Justice Scalia: “The Constitution is Dead, Dead, Dead”

  1. Lance

    January 30, 2013 at 4:22 PM

    “Which constitution?

    The only thing they can rule on is the Constitution, OF the United States, which is codified. They have nothing to say about the Constitution FOR the United States of America.

    Would you tell us the difference sir?

    The original document that was created is the Constitution FOR the United States of America. Then they decided when they wanted to go into the fiction they would statutize it, and that reference is the Constitution, OF the United States. It is statutized in the United States Code (USC) most of which has been put in [brackets] which means it has no legal bearing anyway. So people need to make that differentiation so they understand what is being commented on. For instance what’s called the Supreme Court of the United States that sits in Washington D.C. Can in fact make corporate rulings upon the Constitution, OF the United States. They have nothing to say about the Constitution FOR the United States of America.

    So in law school, what are people studying if they study constitutional law?

    They don’t study constitutional law, they study procedures. That’s what we do too, that’s how we deal with attorneys, lawyers and all those kinds of people, we deal with procedures also.

    Okay, but when they are saying, well go read the Constitution do they still look similar to one another the Constitution FOR and the Constitution OF the fictional one? How can they distinguish them?

    I really don’t care which one they talk about. If the law is written upon your heart it has no value to any man or woman. If its not upon your heart what value is it? If it’s not on your heart you can’t express it on paper anyway.

    The law itself is only a remedy for a breach. If there’s no breach of contract there is no law. So we have these various jurisdictions to facilitate where the contract was made or is to be executed. Based on that there has been competition! They fought and scratched on who has this jurisdiction or that jurisdiction.

    The admiralty was created to deal with commerce. In particular the commerce that occurred on the salt water. When the admiralty judges saw there was money to be made if they could start to adjudicate on the land, they did. So they put pressure on, did this and did that, finally got rid of the common law. Then they moved up from the salt water up through the waterways up through the fresh water. They started claiming this and claiming that. Back in the seventies or eighties the government had the Coast Guard come in and re-survey all of North America.

    When the Army Corp. Of Engineers came in and surveyed North America way back in the 1920’s they determined what sea level was and then evaluated all the land mass based upon that measurement. That was the Army Corp. Of Engineers the national geographic survey people. They did that. So in order to facilitate the admiralty jurisdiction. The government had the coast guard come in and determine that sea level was the highest point in North America. Based on that all the land mass is under water. All it is, is a business.

    What they were trying to do was enforce the implied or adhesion contracts and so forth that have been created by the fictional government who regulates the country by the Constitution OF the United States.

    So the only way they could do that was to put the admiralty at the top of the heap. So all these little nuances like surveying and gold fringe around the flag, in rem suits and all this, has to do with the attempt of the admiralty to remove the competition.

    Any reasonable person that sits down and looks at all this admiralty stuff will come to the conclusion that it’s all a bunch of hooey! In search of money!

  2. David Baugh

    January 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM

    Good points Al. As you point out, the U.S. Constitution is and has been interpreted by liars, traitors and thieves to undermine our liberty and freedom and greatly expand government, rather than being accepted as a limitation on government as it is written and not subject to such interpretation. However, the U.S. Constitution is, on its face, a total and complete denial of our Creator/Savior’s Law system, replacing it with man’s fallacious and more often than not, down right stupid, and fatally defective ideas. In essence, the U.S. Constitution places man and man’s laws above the absolute, eternal, unalterable, and perfect “Law of Liberty” that our Creator/Savior set for us to live by in His Word, the Holy Bible. That which is absolute, unalterable, eternal, and perfect simply cannot be altered, or further perfected, or changed in any way without suffering serious problems as is clearly and unequivocally set forth in Deuteronomy, Chapter 28, as is evidenced by our current, and ever worsening predicament as a nation of His people. The U.S. Constitution, and the governments it purportedly limits, have, in and of themselves, by and through the humans we allow to run them, and the people who bow in fear, worship, support, and dependence upon them, become as “gods” rendering our Heavenly Father’s Laws of no effect. Since we have abandoned our Creator/Savior and His Laws, He is standing by allowing us to learn still another hard lesson–that men will either be governed by Him, or governed by tyrants and oppressors. True Christianity is not just some religion; it is a social, political, economic, and environmental order, or Lay-system by which we are to conduct our lives and our governments in the lands wherein our Heavenly Father has placed us to live under His “perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25). The U.S. Constitution is most certainly not absolute, eternal, unalterable, and perfect; it has provided us with an excellent example of what happens when we foolishly attempt to be as “gods” and operate outside of the parameters of our Creator’s Law-system. For an excellent and exhaustive study on this subject, I highly recommend you and all professing Christian Americans check out Evangelist Ted Weiland’s work comparing our Creator’s Law with the U.S. Constitution. Just go to and take the quiz and get a free primer on the subject, or you can order the entire book. I’ve known Ted for 20 plus years and find his work to be well researched and accurate.

  3. Imagine

    January 30, 2013 at 5:16 PM

    good news for a change? :)

  4. Jethro

    January 30, 2013 at 6:16 PM

    My favorite Scalia response to those who believe we have a “living constitution”:
    “The constitution is not an organism.”

    • freetoairphoenix

      January 30, 2013 at 8:25 PM

      Yes, it was never “alive”, that term was for those who wanted to think of it as a growing and changing thing. It shall be taken at face value, for what it is- not what it “should be in these changing times”

  5. Jim

    January 30, 2013 at 6:35 PM

    Yes there is definitely a concerted effort to undermine the foundation and law of this republic (another example attached below). I don’t doubt that this is an active coordinated effort… it’s not happening in a vacuum. These individuals are not arriving at these conclusions on their own individually.

    Of course the roots of this thinking partly (or maybe mostly) go down into the misconception and misdirection that the people and the certain people in branches of our government take, in believing that we are a democracy. If we are a democracy (which we really unfortunately as a nation have become that to a greater degree then a lesser)… then the life blood of a democracy is a changing or “living constitution” that can change from day to day (i.e. I assume this is what Lance would be referring to in referencing “The Constitution of the United States”. In a democracy, the presiding law begins to be dictated by whatever happens to be written on the hearts of the average voter. What’s written on the hearts of the average voter is no where close to what was written on the hearts of the forefathers that drafted the Constitution. The average voter is all about me, me, me. Short term outlook.

    You can look at 1 Samuel chapter 8 to see the same thing happen to Israel. Though semantically not exactly correct, for all intensive purposes the ancient nation of Israel wanted a democracy (or lets say they surely wanted away from the sovereign Law of God, The Heart of God). And subsequently, you can see the road which the Nation of Israel went down. Fortunately, God’s heart is not an unbending document that can’t provide a means of redemption. I absolutely believe that we should continually be striving towards redeeming our nation. Sometimes (for me at least) that is very difficult to understand how it can or will happen. It may be that God will allow it for a time. I guess that’s a starting place for me in prayer and consideration. In any case, I know He desires the individuals heart (there is no such thing as the corporate heart of the United States). That’s where it begins.

    Lance. Thanks for your comment. “I really don’t care which one they talk about. If the law is written upon your heart it has no value to any man or woman. If its not upon your heart what value is it? If it’s not on your heart you can’t express it on paper anyway. The law itself is only a remedy for a breach. If there’s no breach of contract there is no law. So we have these various jurisdictions to facilitate where the contract was made or is to be executed.” I’m a young man and layperson. I appreciate how it clarifies that if the Law (“ Holy, for I am Holy…”) is not written on a man’s heart… there can be no breach of that law; there’s nothing in that man’s heart to breach. He may breach a document but it means nothing. When the men of a nation reach this point… there is no breach to them. This is a very good way to clearly understand the Faith of Abraham before the formal Law was given to Israel. This is also a very good way to understand how it is that the New Covenant of Christ does not abolish the Old Covenant (Matthew 5:17). It was never about two stone tablets… likewise as best as man touches it, it’s not about a document.

  6. Shawn

    January 30, 2013 at 7:08 PM

    Help! I’m having trouble deciding what form the US government is? In the Constitution it states in Article IV, Section 4, that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” It does not state that the United States is a republican form it just states what it will guarantee to every state a republican form of government. It is in the U.S. House of Representatives, hanging on the wall behind the rostrum from which the Speaker of the House presides, there are two fasces there, hidden in plain site. Do they represent Roman civic authority, do they represent fascism, or is it a mixture of different ideologies that only a few know and the rest of us has to guess which form of government we are under at given the time. How many years have you thought that the United States was a republic form of government, the reason that we think it is a republic form of government is the fact that it has been imbedded into our heads by daily repetition in the schools by the Pledge of Allegiance, and that was wrote in 1892 by Francis Bellamy.” So without any visible form of government what or who could wave a wand over the constitution and give it power to even make a state a republican form? Maybe it is dead, maybe it is there to just keep fooling us into thinking we are free and not the slaves and pawns that we feel like.

    • Adask

      January 30, 2013 at 7:17 PM

      The “republican form of government” is guaranteed only to each of the States of the Union. No such guarantee or mandate is afforded to the territories and/or Washington DC. Today, so far as I can tell, we have a representative democracy as our form of government. That representative democracy is absolutely lawful within the territories and/or Washington DC. It’s completely unlawful within the States of the Union. So, where are you? In a territory like “TX”? Or in a State of the Union like “The State of Texas”? If you’re a US citizen living in a territory, you probably have no standing to demand your “republican form of government”. On the other hand, if you were one of the People of The State of Texas and thus a beneficiary of The Constitution of The States of Texas, I believe tht you’d probably have standing to claim your “republican form of government” within that particular State of the Union.

      • Jim

        January 30, 2013 at 10:04 PM

        The boys seem to have created a union of states under the Articles of Confederation with sovereignty and a more perfect union of states (this union) of the Northwest Ordinance character without sovereignty.
        ARTICLE II. Each State retains its sovereignty,freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United
        States, in Congress assembled.
        1787 Constitution
        Article l section 3
        3 Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may
        be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined
        by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a
        Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

        US citizens are dual citizens ( Blacks 14th amendment) and guess which is paramount. Constitution like United States has more than one sense.,

      • citizenquasar

        January 31, 2013 at 8:34 AM

        Article I, Section 10, Sentence 1 says: “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”

        This looks to me that there is NOT a Constitutional State government in existence, no matter what the state calls itself.

  7. Mike

    January 31, 2013 at 12:24 AM

    Great conversation, you all have great points and good minds. My questions: who will stand for The Constitution of The United States of America at all cost. That is they guy who’s argument I can abide. I will stand for your rights under The Constitution as long as you stand for your fellow citizens’ rights.
    Seems we really have to come together soon.

  8. brimp

    January 31, 2013 at 1:29 AM

    For every proposition you can either be for or against – pro or con. Those who say that the words of the Constitution have no fixed meaning are prostitutes. The opposite of constitution is prostitution.

    The acceptance of the self-evident truths laid out in the Declaration of Independence defined America. If you believe that governments are instituted to secure the unalienable rights of each man and woman in America then you are an American. If you don’t then you’re not. The UN-American crowd will use many techniques to hide this simple definition.

    If the government can take away your right to be armed it is because they gave you that right. If they gave you the “second Amendment” then could it not be implied that they gave you “first Amendment” rights? Wouldn’t this put the government in the master roll instead of the servant roll?

    America is the land of the free and home of the brave where you can’t fight city hall. This belief is widely held in the United States. Most don’t even see the contradiction. This conflict is the root of the American insanity. Until the people out there in TV land comprehend this, they will never be able to think clearly about anything.

    • brimp

      January 31, 2013 at 2:51 AM

      Please forgive the typos, it is late.

    • pop de adam

      January 31, 2013 at 9:17 AM


      If rights exist, these only exist so far as others will respect them. When people interact in large numbers perhaps there is a reciprocity that might need to be acknowledged, not every bump in a crowd or stepped on toe is an overt attack upon us or our rights, some offenses we must just bear.

      “If the government can take away your right to be armed it is because they gave you that right.”

      Privleges are granted and as such may be revoked at the grantors pleasure. I have heard it explained as such: If we really had no rights to begin with, how did we ever get the right to even form a government? No rights no government.

      Thought I would point out that there is a difference between rights and privleges.


      • brimp

        January 31, 2013 at 10:14 AM

        That is the point I was trying to make. It is the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Privileges. If government any of your rights away it is because they have deemed them to be privileges and they can deem all of your rights to be privileges.

        You have the right to do anything that you want as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. If there is a conflict of rights then governments get involved and eventually it is determined by a jury of your peers.

  9. Anthony Clifton

    January 31, 2013 at 6:33 AM

    Scalia, Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan, Roberts, Souter…are Talmudists.

    playing “Let’s Pretend” or hoping that watching Cartoons makes the real world go away doesn’t change the truth…

    it may sound hokey to the talmudvision watching braindeadgoy…but there is only one choice

    one must consider the Facts….

    how many Gog & Magog so-called “Jews” were there in the Old Testament asking Samuel for a “King” so that “Israel” could live like all the other…”Nations”…?

    Identity Theft…Fraud, Extortion, Ledgerdemain…Mass Murder

    curiously Jefferson’s first legislative act in Virginia was to abolish primogeniture

    the book of Numbers contains the Probate Law…Law of Inheritance…

    see if you can spot the talmudic CAMEL NOSE in these issues concerning the LAW

    And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: and to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man’s inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit. But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides,

    and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell. ….

    Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them.

    — and on Super Bowl Sunday Bar-B-Q Championship cook off…

    it was Elijah who famously said in all seriousness….”Choose ye this day….”
    of course at that time there were not Khazar Ashkenazim Yiddish speaking Jews on Talmudvision to Vex the Children of Israel….just like there were never any Dallas Cpowboys at the Alamo

  10. citizenquasar

    January 31, 2013 at 8:51 AM

    The Constitution is an inanimate object so it is neither living NOR dead. BOTH of these words do NOT apply to the Constitution. If Scalia was worth his “honorable” position, he would have said something like, “The Constitution is a non-living document; it is an inanimate object and those who call it a “living document” in an attempt to change its meaning are ignoring what the definition of “living” is and are using that word in a way that destroys its meaning.


    having life; being alive; not dead: living persons.
    in actual existence or use; extant: living languages.
    active or thriving; vigorous; strong: a living faith.
    burning or glowing, as a coal.
    flowing freely, as water.


    1. a : having life
    b : active, functioning

    2. a : exhibiting the life or motion of nature : natural
    b : live

    3. a : full of life or vigor
    b : true to life : vivid
    c : suited for living
    4. : involving living persons

    5. : very —used as an intensive


    1. alive: living creatures (as plural noun the living) flowers were for the living

    2. [attributive] (of a place) used for living rather than working in: the living quarters of the pub
    (of a language) still spoken and used.

    3. [attributive] literary (of water) perennially flowing: streams of living water

    While I am comparing English language definitions to the Constitution, I’ll take a look at some English grammar too.

    Article II, Section1, Sentence 5 says:

    “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

    To me this looks like John Tyler was the last President of the United States.

  11. Chris

    January 31, 2013 at 10:19 AM

    Nothing, except turning back to The Great I Am that became flesh and dwelt among us and promote His Kingdom/Will On Earth, is going to fix this mess we find ourselves in. If we don’t, He will merely bring His Righteous Judgments upon us quicker and more severe.

    Understanding whether the Constitution is dead, dead, dead (unchangeable) or “living” (evolving), or clinging to that constitution, it’s god “We The People” and voting for evil A or evil B, while waiving the banner of said constitution, which has been dead (or at best in a coma) for years, hasn’t changed anything. It’s only gotten worse.

    Don’t think so ?

    Tell me about all the things you’re “free” to do without getting permits, licenses, etc. ???? And how many decades has that been going on ???

    Oh yeah, how’s that constitutional challenge about the Obamanation wasn’t born here been working out so far ??? Scallia’s jumpin’ all over that one, ain’t he.

    The Constitutional Republic died and has become a Communist Republic.

    “The Communist Manifesto” and The Ten Planks contained therein. Here’s just a few examples, but they’re all in full force and effect in the U.S.S.A.:

    1st. Plank: Property tax (Abolition of the right to property – land rent)
    2nd.: Graduated Income tax.
    3rd.: Inheritance tax. (Abolition of the right to inheritance)
    5th.: Central Bank in control of credit & currency (Federal Reserve Bank)
    10th. Free compulsory education (indoctrination via the public fool system)

    And now it’s morphed into Corporate Fascism.

    The truth is: For the most part, this nation has turned it’s back on and, in essence, “flipped the bird” to The Great I Am that became flesh and dwelt among us. And because this nation as a whole hates the truth, here’s what’s happened to it:

    Because they do not have a love of the truth, God has sent them a strong delusion, so that they will believe what is false in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in lawlessness. 2 Thessalonians 2: 10 – 12.

    The Almighty told you in His Word that His Laws, Statutes and Judgments are perfect and “Thou shalt not add or subtract therefrom.” Yet, “We The People” continually “vote” for legislative and presidential offices to do just that, i.e., “add or subtract therefrom.”

    The making of Law is a power that belongs to Him and Him alone!

    The only way to save this nation is to turn back to Him, His Perfect Moral Laws, Statutes and Judgments, i.e., His Kingdom/Will On Earth. He offers a far superior deal: Matthew 11: 28 – 30.

    Seek Him while He may yet be found. Look around, the judgments are happening before your eyes.

  12. Yartap

    January 31, 2013 at 1:06 PM

    A jury of 12 peers have to be unanimous to make a decision upon a case. All Appeal courts (2 to 1 gang) and supreme courts (5 to 4 gang) are nothing more than Legislative bodies. I wish they all had to be unanimous, too. This would help keep constitutions protected and firm up the law.

  13. Zeke

    January 31, 2013 at 7:42 PM

    I thought whoever said the Constitution was a living document, simply meant that issues like the “Liberty” right to travel guaranteed by the Constitution, would also extend to methods of travel, such as automobiles, which had not yet been thought up yet. Living in the sense it is not limited to only what is known or accepted at the time.

    When one compares rights to privileges it should be understand that privileges are protected by law and rights are protected by equity.

  14. Cody

    February 2, 2013 at 6:32 PM

    As long as there is a remnant “Posterity” of the signers of the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Federal Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, the Federal Constitution remains in force. The living and breating document seems to be the 14th Amendment et al which comprises the US constitution. US citizens are chattel of the US. Government. Art. 4 Sect. 2 Citizens of the States are the People for whom the original documents were written. The Courts have held that position since the 14th Amendment was ratified. If you will take the time to read Twining v. New Jersey, the aforementioned facts will be abundantly clear. You will also learn that most of Mr. Adask’s theory is grounded in legal fact and in agreement with the nations most powerful legal scholars..

  15. ed

    February 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM

    Many Americans are suffering from the cult of Constitution. The United States of America was founded on the 4 organic documents, one of which is the Constitution of September 17, 1787. This is one of several Constitutions, but is not the first and it did not replace the Federal Constitution AKA the Articles of Confederation. This Constitution remains an orphan as it was never adopted by the government. If you would like to learn the secrets of countless years of research, read the 700+ posts on for the entire history so that you can free yourself from captivity and the cult of Constitution.

  16. SweaterCups40

    February 7, 2013 at 3:31 PM

    The Constitution is Dead-Dead-Dead, & Tyranny is Alive-Alive-Alive, & in living color !!!

  17. MickeyG

    February 25, 2013 at 7:18 AM

    The problem with law today is that people are simply ignorant of it. People need to realize that they have certain rights and those rights can be taken or modified if they do not object to it. Courts can be courts of law, equity or statutory. You can retain your rights unless they are altered in a court of law. Equity or statutory doesn’t do it, unless of course you don’t object to it.

  18. constitutionalist

    October 20, 2014 at 10:14 PM

    evil scalia is one of the secret society !!! his friends in 1795 commited two of the worst treasonist act , and thats why no one should comment about the U S Constitution or the criminals in the black robe unless you understand it .!!!
    When anyone finds/discovers the conflicts , please send me an email


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s