Actually it restated the plainly written text with the court's "universal understanding" of the framers' intent which the framers so cleverly hid in the penumbras visible while wearing black robes. Changing the meaning of the words from what they actually say to what they would have said had they been written according to one's "universal understanding" of the intent is pretty much the classical definition of judicial activism.
Like silently inserting state constitutional revisions in the Bill of Rights without so stating?