Original sentence: Alternative mechanisms for change: the constitution contains a mechanism (Article V) for adding amendments.One possible outcome of this confusion is the threat of frivolous lawsuits.See also sua sponte.Separation of powers: judges are empowered to interpret existing laws and policies, not to create new ones.Some argue that it is better to amend the text of the constitution rather than to change the meaning of the existing text.The sworn allegiance of judges to uphold the constitution: critics of activist judges argue that such judges violate their oath when they reinterpret the constitution.The unpredictability of decisions by an activist court: people may not be able to act legally if the law's meaning changes over time
Edited sentence: Constitution recognized the need for the Constitution to evolve to meet changing circumstances, by providing a mechanism for the Constitution to be amended.How can any judge or elected official swear allegiance to the Constitution, when its alleged meaning keeps changing according to the whims of judges.However, the Framers of the U.If Judges can rule on what should be legal rather than what is legal, they improperly usurp the power of the legislature to make law, rather than fulfilling the function of the judiciary, which is to interpret the law.If a Judge does not use the original intent as their citerion, what is their citerion for what is legal.If judges make decisions that are based on their own notions rather than the written law, then how can ordinary citizens reasonably predict the outcome of a case.If they had intended the Constitution to be updated, from time-to-time, in keeping with popular consensus, by the Supreme Court, why would they have written Article V, and why did they not include this power in Article III.Popular opinion.Proponents of "the living constitution", i.Their opinion.They can read the law but not read the judges' minds.Thus lawyers can threaten citizens and companies with frivolous lawsuits — in many cases people will pay out large sums of money rather than risk an expensive court case where they have no way of predicting the verdict.of judicial activism, claim that the Constitution must "evolve to meet the needs of an evolving society, lest it become brittle or atrophied"