How can we say we need to have a literal interpretation of a document written hundreds of years ago when we had slavery, women were the property of their husbands and could not vote? The Constitution was written by a bunch of white guys that allowed the genocide on the natives, took all the land as if God gave it to them, then parceled it out as they chose. Is that where we got our property rights? Is there anything we still hold literal about that?
Justices like Scalia have no clue as to the real and flowing message in the constitution. His view and that of dimwits like Bachman and other strict constitutionalists is no different than taking Genisis literally in light of centuries of scientific descoveries. Where does Scalia see that the constitution does not specifically give women any rights. Is there nothing that goes without spelling it out?
It is way past time to apply some logic. Logic is about the aplication of good sense within a given context.
What we have when Supreme Court Justices fail to understand context is confusion. The right wing of the court recently took away our vote by allowing Corporations and Unions to spend as much as they want to get those they choose elected. What chance do the people have if our government is for sale to the highest bidder?
The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights has it all. Aren't we intelligent enough to understand the freedom concept without having those with personal agendas trying to foist their views on everyone?