Just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The Supreme Court is not the impetus for constitutional change - we are.
The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.
But the Supreme Court does not make sweeping changes in constitutional law by accident, or by its own design. Rather, the Court is limited to deciding the cases that the parties ask the Court to decide.
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
There is a higher law than the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is not elected, and it is therefore not a proper arbiter of social policy.
No constitution is or can be perfectly symmetrical, what it can and must be is generally accepted as both fair and usable.
The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare. Nor should this Court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought of as a general haven for reform movements.
Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.