And the interpretation of what the founders meant by the words in the Bill and constitution are in some dispute
For example: what does the Bill mean in the 1st Amendment when it says that the congress will make no law concerning the establisment of a religion?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.htmlAmendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Does that mean that there will be no national church established (That's what I think) or does it mean that there can be no religious activity within government activities? (that's what some people think)
So, I am generally unsatisfied with the understanding of our rights by our judges. I think they try and restrict certain rights because of their bias toward certain rights. I think the activists on the bench often interpret things that are not there.
For example - the searches of electronic and phone information allowed by the patriot act to protect the US against terrorists is opposed by activists that says it violates the 4th amendment:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I guess they think "effects" is their phone records. I don't see it. But some can.