The Supreme Court's ruling is a triumph, once again, of law as an institution that develops in the direction
of the development of human knowledge, as Aquinas conceptualized it. That approach to law is what
strict constructionists often come up against, when they argue that anything that does not literally adhere
to the letter of the constitution as written is unconstitutional.
In rejecting the strict constructionist interpretation of the US constitution, once again, the Court did another
remarkable thing, in an age of passionate partisanship that often threatens to impose the will of the rowdy
minority on the majority. It erred on the side of such Founding Fathers as James Madison, who sought to limit the exposure of the United States to the ever-present threat of mob rule in a constitutional democracy.
