Justice Scalia

Re “Scalia Defends ‘Immovable’ Constitution,” Jan. 24: There is no such thing as a “literal” interpretation of any document. Here’s an easy experiment: Read two books originally written in a foreign language translated by two equally eminent scholars. You will find yourself reading two quite different books. Who should be the ultimate arbiter of what the “literal” meaning of the Constitution is? Two different Supreme Courts can (and have) literally interpreted the same words and phrases of the Constitution differently.

A strict, “literal” interpretation of the Constitution would lead to absurd results. For instance, the 1st Amendment states in part that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of “speech.” Webster’s unabridged Third New International Dictionary defines speech as “the act of speaking,” “something that is spoken: an uttered word,” etc. Therefore, applying a literal standard, the 1st Amendment would not protect the right to write a letter, since that is written communication, not oral “speech.”

As for Justice Antonin Scalia’s argument that if a right is not listed in the Constitution, there is no such constitutional right, the learned justice’s copy of the Bill of Rights must somehow be lacking the 9th Amendment, which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

ALLEN P. WILKINSON

Whittier