Constitutional Revelation a Figment of Imagination.

"Some argue that the Constitution must be a "living, breathing instrument" and that it is right and proper for a majority of the Supreme Court to decide when, where and how the Constitution needs to be changed so as to be "relevant to modern times."

These folks operate on the premise that the Supreme Court is infallible and omnipotent, and that once the Supreme Court has spoken, there is no way to change its ruling."

No, Judge Demoss Jr., it is the originalists and intentionalists who naively believe that the Supreme Court is infallible, omnipotent, and final. You are the ones who believe that a judge through a close reading of the Constitution can somehow divine the intentions and meanings of long dead men. You are the ones who believe that judges reveal fixed and dormant meanings of the Constitution. In fact, since the meaning of the Constitution is entirely immanent and, hence, not subject to any outside influence, you are the ones who believe that "once the Supreme Court has spoken, there is no way to change its ruling." To be more correct, it might be better to say that "once the Constitution speaks through the Supreme Court," because the original meaning of the Constitution has been there for more than 200 years waiting for revelation.

That said, I'm not opposed to a Constitional Ammendment re-asserting a right to privacy.

[Crude section] God, I hate Christianity's influence on law. I hate the idea of a fixed original meaning and a fixed original creator. I hate the idea of God. [end Crude section]