Bit of a generalization, don't you think? In any system where people disagree about what rights the Constitution protects, there will always be someone who complains about the evil tyrannical majority and how it's trampling his rights. Similarly, there will always be those who complains that the court's interpretations are contrary to the will and the intent of the majority. In your retelling of our world, your opinions are entirely reasonable while those of your opponents are tyrannical. You don't see anything hypocritical about that?The Constitution claims to guarantee me certain rights and protections in exchange for adhering to it, but tyrannical majorities are constantly imposing their will on me and whenever a court steps into protect those civil rights that the Constitution claims to guarantee me, the members of the tyrannical majority call it "judicial activism" because it doesn't coincide with their interpretation of the document and the motives of the founders who wrote it 300 years ago.
Unless you're characterizing every majority as a "tyrannical" majority, I don't know where you're getting this. If you do think that every majority is tyrannical, then the word has lost all meaning.The tyrannical majority also demand that a tyrannical majority be the only way that the Constitution be changed through the amendment process outlined in the Constitution itself.
Yes, because the rights in the Constitution inure only to those who belong to the tyrannical majority.So basically, unless you belong to the tyrannical majority, or form your own tyrannical majority, you have no rights, and the only system in place that can protect your individual rights, the court system, must adhere strictly to the document and the motives of the people who wrote it 300 years ago.
If you automatically attribute malicious motives to those who view things differently than you, then why would you expect anything better?Wow, what a convenient way to view the Constitution if you believe in preserving the status quo and are resistant to change. In other words, if you are Conservative.
No, that's not at all what Marbury said. The concept of judicial review is entirely distinct from the concept of a living document.Now let's look at the reality. Marbury v. Madison settled the dispute about whether courts had the power of constitutional interpretation. That means that since 1803, the Constitution has been a living document.
Again, this is completely false. The very concept of the concept as a living document didn't even come into existence until around 80 years ago.It may not have been the intention of the founding fathers, but it is the reality that for most of America's history, the document has been living.