[chc]

The point is not that the Founding Fathers were mortal incarnations of the divine. The point is that the law has to have a meaning or else it is literally meaningless. If we use the law like tea leaves and just read in whatever meaning we want, whether or not it's what the law is actually supposed to mean, that puts us in a precarious position. Maybe today "equal protection" means that gays should be allowed to marry, but tomorrow it means that everyone should be equally protected from being hit on by gays. That's not a good footing for our society to be on.

[drivingmenuts]

> That's not a good footing for our society to be on.

That's actually very good footing for our society to be on. It means that the law can change as society changes over time. Future societies will not be bound to outdated precepts established by people who have never lived in their world.

We tend to think of laws as these unchanging concepts, perfectly created, but they are not. Ultimately laws are created by mankind and interpreted by the same. We may believe that they derive from a higher power, but we have no absolute proof of that higher power and thus, the law must begin and end with Man.

If some deity is willing to descend to the mortal plane and lay down The Law, then he/she or it welcome to do so. Until then, we are stuck with the best that we ourselves can do.

[sfeng]

It's the job of the legislature to change the laws, not the courts.

[hackuser]

> It's the job of the legislature to change the laws, not the courts.

Not according to our system of laws.

The courts are empowered to change laws that conflict with others, particularly with laws superior to the one in question; in this case the laws in the Constitution overrule state laws.

Also, the courts are responsible for interpreting laws, and therefore can change them in that way too.

[hackuser]

> We tend to think of laws as these unchanging concepts ...

I think the best analogy here is, people tend to think of them as code.