Steve Cuno (Readers' Forum, Nov. 2) argues that we shouldn't use "the intent of the Founding Fathers for deciding what is and isn't a right." I presume he refers to their intent as expressed in the Constitution.
What are the alternatives? If we allow the Supreme Court to freely discard, change or invent rights, instead of simply enforcing them, we place ourselves at the mercy of as few as five judges who received lifetime appointments from whichever political party temporarily gained the upper hand in Washington. Such a system is closer to a monarchy or a tyranny than a democracy. We should rely instead on the time-proven amendment process, as defined in the Constitution, to make appropriate changes as society evolves.