They most certainly did not allow that unelected lifetime judges would wield editorial control over the Constitution.
After all, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not open to debate, its meaning is 100% obvious to all honest people.
"shall not be infringed" leaves no room to wiggle.
The Tenth Amendment doesn't allow the Congress and the President and the Courts room to usurp powers.
However that worked, it's pretty clear that Obama and Nancy and Harry and the rest of their followers and supporters believe the Constitution is now dead.
The Democrats and their Jim Crow nonsense was condoned by the Courts in the Plessy vs Ferguson decision....a fine example of the Living Document Theory at work.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government allowed to provide transportation services, hence no where in the Constitution can be found any basis for the so-called Seperate But Equal transport arrangements enacted in the Southern States after Reconstruction, and since it can't be found in the document, the idea that a "living" Constitution covered the insanity of racial segregation is flat absurd.
However, it was the Living Document Theory that created federal toleration of racial segregation, not any sort of strict constructionism.
Again, the Living Document Theory has created magically appearing formerly non-existent rights, that have led to the destruction of nearly one hundred million babies since Roe v Wade created new unconstituitonal laws.
There's the socialists and Marxists and other "progressives". To be a useless idiot like that and not even realize their useless idiots, that's true self-debasement there.
Identify the clause of the Constitution that gives the federal governemnt to interfere in state sodomy laws. I agree that fudge packing among consenting adults isn't something the state and local government should intervene in, just provide the Constitutional justification for making sodomy a federal issue.
If rules have no force, they have no meaning.
That means they're not rules at all.
Hamilton opposed the First Amendment on the grounds that there was no need to place a restriction on the government from doing that which the Constitution did not grant the power to do in the first place.
Hamilton also said, in Federalist 83, that it was meaningless to create the specific enumerated powers of governement if the government was able, as some claimed, to seize what power it wanted to do as it will. In modern terms, Hamilton did not see any blank checks in his Constitution.
That means no flimsy flexible rules.
Other means of mass communication did not exist, and in a correct form of judicial interpretation, the freedoms of press and speech have been expanded to both individuals being represented by the corporations they've invested in, and by freedoms of the various electronics media. For the most part.
That wonderful judicial activism and Living Document **** kept Eugene Debb in jail for years, for the heinous crime of publicly opposing Wilson's interventionist war in Europe.
Great stuff, that Living Document ****, when you want to impose authoritarian rule. For some reason, Living Document **** doesn't apply when people want to protect their freedoms.
LDS (sorry, not referring to the Mormons here) is most dramatically applied when people want to babble about how the "Founders" didn't know about laser sighted fully autoomatic "assault" rifles. NO, oh no! THEN the LDS is about restricting freedoms. Can't have law abiding citizens having them there modern weapons.
Other LDS allowed the creation of the FHA. Which led to the CRA, which led to CRA II, eventually the busted mortgage crisis of 2008.
Can someone cite, in their Living Document, where the Messiah derives the authority to intervene in bank foreclosures? Where people who pay their mortgage and their taxes are required to pay more taxes so people who won't pay their mortgages get to keep a house they haven't paid for?
Cite the clause of this magical Living Document that says the government can take dollars from people who have decided they didn't want their dollars going to General Motors and then giving those dollars to GM anyway?
Anyone REALLY beleive that Hamilton or Madison or anyone living in that era would accept the notion that the government should have the power to tax the people to prevent a private company from going bankrupt? No, those people NEVER believed that, and thus this whole Living Document **** is just that, the watery ploppings of a flatuent cow that never saw the shores of the real America.
So what do you recommend we do about it, Scarecrow?
A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
I disagree with that take, the Supreme court has been vital in protecting the spirit of the constitution. I dont see them as acting outside the constitution, I think the Founders envisioned a Court that would protect us from the Tyranny of the Majority. For example the Court should have never allowed prohibition even though it was passed through majority, prohibition was a direct violation of peoples civil rights. As is the legislation against drugs.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)