It means what it says

I have learned more about Justice Scalia since his demise.

I also have learned I like some of what he said about the Constitution. He said the Constitution should be considered and interpreted in the light of the times in which is was written. In other words, look at what was meant in the late 1700s to understand the Constitution.

I like that. The more I think on it, the more I like it. Across the board.

Now some people are going to immediately rip into me about what the original Constitution has to say on many things, including slavery, women's rights and etc.

In other words, look at what was meant in the late 1700s to understand the Constitution. Read the Constitution.

I'll come back to that in a moment.

Scalia, among other things, said the federal government has no business telling a woman she can have an abortion. He also said the fed boyos have no business telling a woman she cannot have an abortion. His reasoning was abortion is NOT mentioned in the Constitution, ergo is a matter left to the states.

For those saying I'm now an idiot (and you may be right), I point out abortion is mentioned in the Bible. It was also available at the time the Constitution was written.

Further, under the Constitution, I'd argue that states have no right to have a say on abortion. See the 14th Amendment for particulars. This Amendment makes the Constitution apply to state governments.

Since I'm on the topic of Amendments, there's yer segue. Look at Article 5. Here's pretty good explanation of Article 5.

Real clear. Real simple. If the Constitution does not address the matter, it's left to the people. If the Constitution does address the matter, look at what was meant WHEN THAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN.

If there's an issue, Amend the Constitution. It's been done in my lifetime. Sometimes, Amending the Great Document is a mistake. The 18th Amendment was a mistake. The 21st Amendment undid the mistake.

Slavery was repealed VIA AMENDMENT!

The right to vote was AN AMENDMENT!

The only clause I can think of right now which should be interpreted in light of modern mores is the Cruel and Unusual punishment clause.

I was taught in school the Constitution is a "living document." It's not. If the Founding Fathers mean the Constitution to cover everything, Article 5 would not be a part of the document. The ability to Amend the Constitution is the Founding Father's guarantee that it CAN be adapted to things they could not foresee.

Interpret the words based on the time they were written. If you have issues, attempt an Amendment.

And let the flaming commence.