This is basically an argument of reality versus a longing for a return to the past. The fallacy of strict constituality is basically a world view argument. Will our judges take into account the the world as it is or the world as it was?
Will our judges rule allowing for the the real nature of the world or peering through the rear view mirror of nostalgia? Take for example the Second Amendment. I cannot imagine an article of the Constitution more out of touch with the well being of the American people. As a result of a very outdated world view, our country has become a gun driven slaughter house. Which should be more important to a judge, the well being of the people of the people or supporting a world view from a different day and time?
It is the knee jerk reaction of strict constitutionalists that there is no flaw in the Constitution. Like the Bible, the Constitution was written by fallible men who based its creation on the world they lived in, not the world that was to become.
In the long run, amendment of the Constitution to fit the current reality is the solution to the problem. This is a long and difficult process weighted to the advantage of the smaller, more backward states.
In the short run, judges should have the flexiblity and will to rule to fit the current reality, not some idealized notion from the mists of time. Though precedence is an important legal mechanism, adaptibility of the law is more important. Hence I propose that law is a matter of situtation, not only precedence. Every ruling needs to adapt itself to the evidence at hand, not just the precendence from the past. In fact, I believe adaptibility of rulings is the primary duty of judges, not the adhering to some ruling from a dusty tome.