In my opinion, a constitution must be interpreted to fit new circumstances. Search and seizure is a good example which hasn't been black and white. Is it a "search" to use infrared cameras to find grow houses from the street was one example. When the founders thought of "search" it was pretty simple to identify, government agents physically access your property. Likewise the second amendment had to be considered in the light of invention of new weapons. What are or are not valid weapons to possess? Are your rights different depending on your location? Such things required interpretation. When it comes to rights, yes I believe that there was plenty of support for the court to make slavery illegal without the Fourteenth amendment, and it was a tragedy that they didn't act on it. Some abolitionists argued that the constitution, properly applied, would make slavery unconstitutional despite obvious indications that the authors of that document were not attempting to do so, or they would have said so and the debates were on the record. Fredrick Douglass spoke the most about it. When it comes to protecting individual freedom, the court should indeed expand on the intent of the constitution as it was perceived by those who wrote it, but based on its contents precedents and consistency. The Constitution is not eroded by expanding its protections based on its principals. Otherwise, governments could just lawyer their way around it, and say the constitution doesn't spell out that we can't gather voicemails voluntarily given to government agents. This would just be like a carrier sharing a letter between two individuals, no search protection there. The government constantly tries to erode the constitution, under any president, and the court needs to have the latitude to counter their creativity.