It may seem to be a truism, but the Constitution means what it says -- as understood at the time of its adoption. That is an argument that, sadly, has not been in vogue for some time among American liberals, who have come to believe that American courts constitute an ongoing Constitutional Convention that can simply change the Constitution without regard to precedent or the method of amendment outlined in the document itself.

Justice Antonin Scalia had a few choice words for those who hold to the latter view.

People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.

In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution "as it was originally written and intended."

"Scalia does have a philosophy, it's called originalism," he said. "That's what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do," he told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory.

According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.

Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."

"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court."

"They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said.

Boy, is the man ever right on this one. You have to be an idiot to believe that the institutions created by the Constitution have the power to redefine the meaning of the document itself. The notion of evolving standards means that the words of the Constitution mean nothing whatsoever -- or perhaps that the same words mean different things at different times. That notion is absurd.

And for anyone who disagrees, answer this simple question -- how many of you would be willing to take out a mortgage if the bank retained the right to change the terms and conditions at will and with no recourse on your part?

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Stuck On Stupid, third world country, Don Surber, Bacon Bits, Jo's Cafe, Basil's Blog