I would add a question: Which group do you think have a keener sense of the real Constitution and the original intent of the Founders and authors of the Constitution and Amendments, The ACLU and Liberal Judges making these rulings *today* or the US Supreme Courts in the first 180 years of our existence?
But following this argument, do you contend that we should still have segregated schools and a doctrine of "separate but equal?" Or, for that matter, not have a right to appointed counsel in any criminal trial? After all, the 6th Amendment, quite clearly, was not intended to provide appointed counsel for criminal defendants--it only guaranteed the right of the accused to be defended by counsel.
While what you're saying might sound good on first blush, I think you take a lot of today's civil liberties, most of which were really flushed out in the 1950s-1970s, for granted when saying such things
Excellent question!
The judicial agenda of our first 180 years was focused on two things: Justice and Unity. They ruled based on the the premises of "right and wrong - good and evil." Things were much simpler then. If you murdered someone, you were hanged. If you committed adultery, it was considered socially unacceptable. The union of mairrage was between a man and a woman - the family was the nucleus of society.
All that has changed now. Our morales are dictated by district and federal judges. Right is not right and wrong is not wrong. In fact, ALL things are now relative - there is no right or wrong.
And above all, the Ten Commandments no longer command the conscience (if there is one) of America.