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
Yet it doesnt bother you that many of those recent "rights" like abortion etc. DO NOT REALLY EXIST in the Constitution????
The only real abrogation of Constutitional interpretation was the Pleesy v Ferguson line, wholly due to Southern segregationist Justices not living up to the words written in the 14th Amendment.
But imho the exception does not make the rule. Our consitutional interpretation has DIS-improved since 1963 not improved.
If you read carefully, yes, the 6th Amendment doesnt say taxpayers have to fund counsels for defendants.
Like Miranda, it's nice public policy but a Judicial court invention, not a Constitutional imperative.