[lsbskins1]

Consider this opinion on the reasoning behind avoiding the strict construction theory:

"A constitution that did not invalidate so offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law [as the Connecticut law banning the use or distribution of contraceptives] would stand revealed as containing major gaps. Maybe that is the nature of our, or perhaps any, written Constitution; but yet, perhaps the courts are authorized to plug at least the most glaring gaps. Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home....We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution."

And there is also this concept:

"Originalists (strict constructionists) lose sight of the forest because they pay too much attention to trees. The larger purpose--the animating spirit--of the Constitution was the protection of liberty, and we ought to focus on that."

I like to think about it like this: The purpose of law is to provide the most perfect justice possible. Those who would read only the letter of the law, and ignore the spirit of the law, do a disservice to the concept of justice. What should drive the interpretation of Constitutional law and the protection of an individuals rights under that Constitution is not whether or not something was specifically foreseen or enumerated, it should be what establishes the most perfect form of justice possible. The framers of the Constitution, most certainly in intent, where trying to establish a document that would give a fundemental grounding and reliable guarantee of a form of government responsible to the ideals freedom and opposed to tyranny. In short, the test should not be "does the Constitution grant this protection specifically", but rather "should the law, opporating in a manner consistent with a modern understanding of justice, provide this protection, and can it be reasonably infered that reasoned men would expect this protection."