justified. Fair criminal and civil procedures must be
             dismantled since they have no specific textual reference in the
             Constitution. Freedom of speech, religion, and property rights are all
             called in question. Also affected is the legitimacy of franchise and
             legislative apportionment bodies of doctrine. The equal protection
             clause of the Constitution when read literally outlines the defense of
             some forms of racial discrimination. However, it does not immediately
             guarantee the right to vote, eligibility for office, or the right to serve
             on a jury. Additionally, the clause does not suggest that equal-facility
             segregation is not to be allowed. Finally, the freedom from cruel and
             unusual punishments as outlined in the eighth amendment loses its
             flexibility. In this manner, a prima facie argument against the
             interpretive model is evident. Without the ability to move beyond the
             specific wording, the Court loses its authority to protect what society
             values as basic human rights. A fundamental question relevant to this
             debate is whether or not values within our society are time-enduring
             or changing. When the Supreme Court makes a controversial
             decision, does it use the text of the Constitution to legitimize principles
             of natural law, social norms and arrangements? Or, is it acting as an
             interpreter of slowly changing values and imposing its views on society
             through its decisions? The Constitution is not a stagnant document; it
             is very much alive and ...