Sure it does, when did corporations become protected persons based on the amendment that freed slaves? Where do you come down on Citizens United and was that judicial activism or in the words of Roberts "calling balls and strikes". With the strike of a pen Russ Feingold was overturned. When exactly did Money=speech? Do you agree that's activism or is that just literal reading of the constitution?None of the above challenges the definitions I gave. If there was some hypocracy or willful/negligent misinterpretations that actually furthers my point.
Not so, restrictions were made in the name of security to the Constitution. I think it's a pretty popular stance. So why can't a city outlaw the carrying of handguns on a person for security? When does it go from "proper wording" to "selective interpreation" using your words.I don't even want to hear the WMD argument because it's a logical fallacy, so I will leave it alone.
Once again necessary and proper...pretty subjective.Finally, if there are constitutional issues that need some governance there are ways to fix it using the logic of that which is necessary and proper.