The underlying principle of those who would dismiss the intent of the founders of our nation as defined in The Constitution is that because "strict interpretation" would limit judges to the rights "recognized by a limited group of people at a fixed date in history (Justice Wm. J. Brennan) it should be used merely as a guideline "to cope with current problems and current needs".  Chief Justice Earl Warren characterized strict construction of the words of The Constitution as "ludicrous" and "a spurious issue" because of "ever changing circumstances," including circumstances "far beyond the vision of even the wisest of the Founding Fathers^"1. 

This is, of course, obvious. Change is constant and it must be dealt with. The question is not whether changing circumstances require adjustment but, rather, who should make the adjustment and how. The Constitution, itself, places that power into the hands of the people through its representatives. In fact, the Constitution clearly spells out four routes defining how it is to be changed through amendment². Yet activist judges, ignoring the dictates of the document they've sworn to uphold, usurp the power of the people by using furtive "sleight-of-hand to attribute to The Constitution things that The Constitution never said..." nor intended.

The result is that "the law of the land" is changed to "evolving standards". The result is that our entire framework of law becomes unreliable so that one's expecting justice based on known laws and standards is no longer possible. Judicial advocacy "goes to the heart of a free, self-governing society, which is being superseded by ex post facto laws deriving not from legislation but from judicial fiats." (Sowell, 232)

Justice Brennan, for example, completely disregarded clear, unambiguous language in the Civil Rights Act  of 1964 that forbade any racial discrimination in apprenticeship training programs when he excluded a white worker in favor of black workers with lower qualifications. He simply rewrote the law to conform to his vision.

The Fourteenth Amendment says that all should receive equal treatment under the law yet it has been repeatedly interpreted in a manner that seeks to compensate for past issues by providing unequal treatment for some so as to support the vision of the Anointed for such compensation.

"The charge I make against the present Executive administration is that in all their proceedings relating to these unfortunate men, instead of that Justice, which they were bound not less than this honorable Court itself to observe, they have substituted Sympathy!—sympathy with one of the parties in this conflict of justice, and antipathy to the other."³.

The Supreme Court has, in fact, announced its emancipation from historical constraints. In Durham vs. The United States it promulgated:

"Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects."

In other words, the court "cut itself loose from historical moorings and historical meanings, relying instead on its own "reasoned judgment". Thus, it has freed itself from "the tyranny of the majority".

"When judges find rights in hidden constitutional meanings, they run a twofold risk. If they limit those rights, striking balances and compromises between such competing values as privacy vs. life or privacy vs. morality, they act as politicians, only without democratic accountability. The alternative, to let those rights expand without limit, seems more principled and thus is more appealing. But it ignores democracy's most important principle of all: the right of the people to govern themselves."⁴ .

In summary, it's my opinion that rather than being the people's staunchest ally in turning back those who would remove our rights in favor of those who have a need to rule, the judiciary has become (or is becoming) an uncontrolled, (uncontrollable?) force for morphing our society into one ruled by the vision of the Anointed, a society of group rather than individual responsibility and accountability, a society with a mandarin class that uses those over which it exercises power as subjects to be manipulated and molded to fit a vision in which reality holds little meaning. A vision whose implementation in numerous instances has proved to be destructive and deadly.

I see it happening before my eyes. I do not believe the trend will be reversed without bloodshed because that's what it took the last time and every time before that. The Anointed are relentless.

1.  Note that he's ignored the vision, wisdom and will of all those in the states who voted to ratify the document in his attempt to denigrate it  lessening the document's importance. in so doing he reflects the Anointed's view that any who are not in full accord with their Vision are untermenchen and that they are not worthy of recognition by the exalted Anointed as they pursue implementation of the policies of their Vision.

2.The Constitution, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used).
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used).
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once).
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times).

3. John Quincy Adams, Remarks before the Supreme Court in the Armistead Case.

4.  Taranto, James, WSJ, 2/8/2005, pA18.