>>>
Am I right to understand that Judge Bork would have no problem with a state legalizing armed robbery?<<<If the Constitution/Court interpretation failed to address armed robbery, Bork, as member of S.C.O.T.U.S., would have no problem. As a citizen/resident of that state, he would probably seek residence elsewhere.
"A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means." This principle excludes both "living Constitution" jurisprudence as well as "natural law" jurisprudence.
Best statement I've read on textual adherence.
W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion....Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
It is hard to imagine that the issue of abortion was even remotely considered by the framers of the fifth and fourteenth. How could they anticipate that they or their progeny would need Constitutional protection for the unborn. And if it was anticipated, they must have concluded that a society dedicated to exterminating the young would neither be worthy of their efforts in erecting and maintaining a Constitutional Republic, nor be constrained by such.