The Supreme Court has used various machinations and word games to justify avoiding the plain wording and the intent of the Constitution in quite a number of cases. One of these is 'compelling government interest', another is 'legitimate government interest', another is combining either of the first two with 'the least intrusive violation of rights', and another is reciprocity such as; 'since the 4th Amendment uses the word unreasonable then it's interpretation must also include reasonable. Few realize how damaging these concepts are to the rights of the states and the citizens and how much they threaten the future of Constitutional law as written and intended.

By including 'compelling interests' in the ruling on the Hobby Lobby case, SCOTUS has laid the groundwork for the Federal government to bypass the Bill of Rights as well as any and all natural rights.

From the article:
"One of these land mines is how the justices treated the question of whether mandated abortifacient insurance promotes a “compelling government interest.”

In its principal opinion, the Court assumed for purposes of argument that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contraceptive mandate serves a compelling government interest. However, five members of the Court – a majority – went farther: Justice Kennedy stated in concurring opinion that the decision’s “premise” was that the federal government had a “compelling interest in the health of female employees.” The four dissenters affirmatively claimed that the mandate furthered “compelling interests in public health and women’s well being.”

The mandate in question was issued under the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). In 2011, a federal district judge found that another Obamacare mandate also served a “compelling interest” (Mead v. Holder).

It is a very serious matter when the Supreme Court classifies a law or other government action as serving a “compelling interest.” In the Court’s jurisprudence, most laws promote only “legitimate” interests, and a few promote legitimate interests that are “important” as well. On rare occasions, a legitimate interest is held also to be “compelling.” If a law is deemed “necessary” to advance the compelling interest, the law may actually overrule portions of the Bill of Rights. It also may overrule basic liberties listed elsewhere in the Constitution or in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

While our attention is currently focused on Executive overreach by Obama and even Congress for legislating unconstitutionally over State's rights, we must not forget that SCOTUS has been and is an active participant in rewriting our Constitution and by precedent, sets up our State Supreme Courts to do similarly with our rights within each state. We are entering a time of lawlessness in this nation.