For Rehnquist, its undemocratic when federal judges - who are not elected - follow
their own values and political beliefs. He says they should instead defer to what

"the people" set forth in the Constitution.

Yet many people believe that the Court should not keep a covenant that limits them
to the intentions of the framers. For one thing, we know that the framers disagreed
among themselves about the meanings of particular provisions. Whose intent should
we pick? Some feel there is an even deeper problem; why, they ask, should we be
bound by the terms of a contract adopted two centuries ago? None of us were alive
to consent to the founders' interpretations of things. So why is a doctrine of original
intent more democratic than relying on more recent interpretations and
understandings?

Many critics of original intent agree that government is a product of a social
contract, but they do not think of it as an actual historical agreement among real
people at a particular time. Some believe that judges should conceive of
constitutional rights in a way that's appropriate for today: they can respect the Social
Contract by trying to figure out what free and equal persons would choose as
governing principles if they did not know their individual interests.