It seems every 7 or 8 months I feel the need to remind posters to familiarize themselves with substantive due process, inherent in the XIV Amendment and the meaning of liberty within the Amendment.

Those, who argue for original intent as the sole method of constitutional interpretation are misguided. Original meaning is more appropriate to describe one of the methods of applying constitutional law to a given set of facts. When the uninformed shout for original intent, it begs the question, "Whose intent? the framers? If so, the framers, starting with the founding fathers, had different perspectives on the general provisions they drafted. Moreover, does one then consider the intent of the the state legislatures or constitutional conventions that ratified the Amendments?

There are arguments to be made intelligently about the several approaches a court may take in applying constitutional principle, but by saying that left wingers invented the living document crap to make it anything they want reflects an ignorance of the constitutional process from Marbury v. Madison onward.

I keep saying that the uninformed always attack decisions they see as activist as liberal abuses, but decisions, such as the Heller case, which was activist in expanding the II Amendment, and the recent voting rights act decision, eviscerating the act show that activism isn't limited to the left wing.