[highlander_UW]

But we do not measure the protection the Constitution affords a right by the values of our own times. If contemporary desuetude sufficed to read rights out of the Constitution, then there would be little benefit to a written statement of them. Some may disagree with the decision of the Founders to enshrine a given right in the Constitution. If so, then the people can amend the document. But such amendments are not for the courts to ordain.

And the converse should be equally true...it is not to the courts to write in and create new rights by fiat.

[antiRepublicrat]

it is not to the courts to write in and create new rights by fiat.

There is some latitude on that end due to the 9th Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

If a court "creates" new rights, it can be said to simply be recognizing a non-enumerated right as stated in the Constitution.

[MrB]

Wow... this is “anti-deconstructionist”.

Leftists’ worldview and view of the rule of law is centered in deconstructionism - ie, that the written word has no inherent meaning except as interpreted by contemporary readers.

That’s where the “Living Constitution” concept comes from.