Holmes claimed that, “[T]he justification of a law for us cannot be found in the fact that our fathers always have followed it. It must be found in some help which the law brings toward reaching a social end.” Sure, I believe that if ...
Words mean nothing.
The original system of checks and balances is no longer constitutional.
And the original framers were relativist mystics who did not reject socialism (esp in education), tyranny, anarchy, moral relativism, liberalism, libertarianism, gun control, and religious (Judeo-Christian) persecution.
Holmes:
"It must be found in some help which the law brings toward reaching a social end.” Cardozo:
“If there is any law which is back of the sovereignty of the state, and superior thereto, it is not law in such a sense as to concern the judge or lawyer, however much it concerns the statesman or the moralist.” Not very consistent, these guys. Somehow, methinks they do, in fact, consider themselves the ultimate moralists.