And yet, strangely, having seen both of the speak live I have to say that in that venue Scalia is a much better entertainer than Moore.

I'll have to wait until Scalia makes a "doc"umentary or Michael Moore writes a "legal" opinion before I can really compare them toe-to-toe.

It's Scalia. What, exactly, were you expecting? That's what he does. Actually, he generally first takes you down the meandering path to demonstrate just how much of an idiot you are if you disagree, and then he concludes with the only two or three sentences that are really important.

It doesn't make me want to invite him to my next holiday soiree, but what would be the point of seating 9 justices if they shared the same viewpoint? Plus, he's entertaining in a curmudgeonly way.

Oh, so the words "well-regulated militia" have not changed? Or could it be that the wording of the Constitution and its amendments is vague and open to interpretation despite the unchanging meaning of words in the English language?

Wow - my eyes have been opened. I now realize that the founders never intended for the average farmer out on the range with limited or no contact with others was never meant to have firearms, as they weren't part of a well regulated militia. Thanks for clearing that upo.

Scalia's words are petty. If someone moronic like Scalia calls anyone an idiot, they should take it as a compliment.

No offense, but this looks like the pot is calling the kettle black...

Sorry scaeagles .. but whether you or I find the meaning of the Second Amendment clear is beside the point. It's been infamously controversial throughout American history for the differences of highly intelligent people in interpreting the wording of the Founding Fathers.

It's a clear example of the falicy of your argument that the meaning of "is" is "is." It's far more complicated than that.

Maybe, but now I can say I have something in common with a Supreme Court Justice.

But that isn't a changing of the meaning, Ism. There are, of course, completely legitimate arguments as to what the intent of the founders was. I have no problem with that, and completely invite such arguments, particularly with such bastardization of interstate commerce throughout history and, more recently, eminent domain.

I am talking about the changing of the meaning. As was Scalia. Intelligent people disagree all the time. He was saying that those who think the meaning of the Constitution changes - as in being a living, breathing document - are idiots.

Oh, I'll grant that the meaning hasn't changed. But who has the right to say what the meaning was?

Certainly the Supreme Court is granted that authority, but it doesn't change the fact that the meaning may be different from one justice to the next. The document is, therefore, still living and breathing. It matters not that the text is carved in stone if it can only be read in sand.