"The Consitution is subjective.

If it was set in stone then there would never have been the need to have a panel of Judges vote on particular subjects or if they voted on a 'non-changing' document it would have to be 100% for or against and then the decision becomes unchangeable just like a Papal decree."

That's the problem; some do not like judges "declaring" how the constitution is changing, in some cases. They do not trust them, and can you really blame them? But, then again, that's why they don't have much power to enforce anything.

The irony I see is when people cite the constitution was meant to be, almost always throwing in something about the founding fathers, and then pointing to how the Courts aren't directly in check by the people, losing sight of the fact that is what the founding fathers intended.