Judicial Originalism

If you are being technical, Yes, People will always have some bias, But undoubtably the best way to combat this is looking at the literal definition of the words in the constitution. The idea that we can best judge the meaning of the constitution by ruling the way we feel the constitution should be interpreted as is subjective by its very definition, And once we start to do this, The limits of what we "feel" it means expand to the point where it becomes less about the actual interpretation of the constitution and more about what we want it to mean. The latest example of this would be in 2008 Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller. The gist of the case is that Washington D. C. Instituted a handgun ban effectively removing the right of private citizens to own firearms. A police officer wanted to keep his work gun in his house between shifts for self-defense, But he was not allowed to do this because of this handgun ban. The ban went to the D. C. District Court and was upheld. Thankfully the court ruled in favor of the officer but only by one vote. The dissenting opinion of the supreme court, Courtesy of justices who believe the living, Breathing document philosophy, Wrote that the second amendment did not guarantee the right to bear arms to the private citizen [Source 1]. No honest reading of the second amendment could lead to this conclusion. Without a non-governmental militia, The U. S. Would not even exist, And because of this, The founding fathers guaranteed the right to bear arms. All documents at the time suggest the purpose is to arm private individuals. We were literally one justice believing that the constitution was a living, Breathing document from not having a second amendment. As for your example on religion, You would be incorrect. Cornell law says, "The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law 'respecting an establishment of religion' This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, But also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, Or non-religion over religion" [Source 2]. That is favoring a religion over another; therefore, It is blatantly unconstitutional. As for your assertion that the amendment process is much too arduous, Did you know that Congress looks passes roughly 750 bills per year? There are only 2 substantial difference between the process of making bills and amendments. 1. 2/3 support of both chambers needed for amendments rather than 1/2 support for a bill 2. States could actually take it upon themselves by calling a constitutional convention and pass an amendment with 3/4 support The process is almost exactly the same except it gives more opportunities to pass an amendment, At the expense of a higher support. If an aspect of the constitution was so clearly so outdated, It would have no problem being changed. A majority of the Supreme Court is being used to bypass the traditional constitutional canal which the founding fathers would have viewed as a direct exploitation of the judicial branch, And this is a large cause of the major political divide of our time. The idea that judges can sit on the court and rule that abortion should be legal is preposterous. Setting political differences aside, Where the hell in the constitution does it say anything about the right to an abortion? If there were laws regarding abortion rather than mere precedent, There be less riots and (idiotic) Stop Kavanaugh attempts. The founding fathers, In all their wisdom, Knew that the United States is not a culturally homogenous place. The constitution was difficult enough to ratify in the first place. They knew the notion that the constitution could be changed with a simple majority of anyone, Nonetheless a majority of unelected officials, Would be dangerously divisive, And they were absolutely right. These landmark decisions and passages need to have more support in order to maintain peace; it is just the world we live in. Every time judges refer to the constitution as a living, Breathing document, What they really mean is that either: They want more power over the constitution Or they want to rationalize methods to impose their political ideologies on all Americans Both are equally dangerous. I just have one question: You "feel" the constitution should be regarded as a living document; how can you assure justices do not "feel" large portions of the bill of rights should not apply? Source 1: https://www. Law. Cornell. Edu/supct/html/07-290. ZD1. Html Source 2: https://www. Law. Cornell. Edu/wex/establishment_clause