[lugsoul]

"If the Constitution is a living breathing document subject to change according to social and ideological norms, as I believe at least 5 of the 9 justices believe, then so your God-given rights are also subject to change by the POLITBURO. One cannot logically maintain that constitutional law is governed by changing social/cultural norms and simultaneously hold to any unchanging absolute moral principles."

Is the holding of slaves as property an unchanging absolute moral principle? Or did the Supreme Court have the right and obligation to change this after the passage of time?

[exmarine]

Is the holding of slaves as property an unchanging absolute moral principle? Or did the Supreme Court have the right and obligation to change this after the passage of time?

Does or does not the SCOTUS exceed its constitutional powers when it legislates from the bench? Yes or no? If you say no, then you have to justify how a court can make new rules and laws to follow (independent of Congress) under the present Articles of the Constitution. These are the men I have no respect for: Taney, O.W. Holmes, Blackmun, Warren, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter, and their ilk. John Jay should be required reading.

[exmarine]

Is the holding of slaves as property an unchanging absolute moral principle? Or did the Supreme Court have the right and obligation to change this after the passage of time?

The difference between the founders and liberals is that the founders believed in unchanging moral laws and the unchanging sinful nature of all men. Liberals believe no such thing. John Jay had more honor and integrity in his pinky than all the liberal justices of the 20th century combined.