All right, that is a lot more clear.
However, a lot of the articles in the Constitutional amendments read like this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There are two ways to look at it. The way that I prefer is that the people who put the amendments together wanted to define a list of rights that the people had without actually saying that these rights were inherent to human nature. It follows that if the government cannot make a law saying that this freedom can't be abridged then the people have that right as a citizen of the country. The other way of looking at it is that they simply wanted to limit the power of the new government and couldn't decide on what rights the people had and didn't have.
I have a hard time separating the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence. If the people in that time believed that certain rights were god-given (because some of the colonial leaders had signed a document saying as much), would they really turn around 12 years later and say, "Wait a minute, no, these rights are not god-given, Thomas Jefferson had it wrong." That doesn't seem very plausible to me. While each document was written by different people and came at different times, I think the ideology presented in the Declaration had a great influence on the Constitution. There was this idea that church and state should be separated, but I find it hard to believe that government policy was entirely set apart from religious beliefs.
I still don't agree that the Supreme Court is just a follower of trends and has no influence on the events following their rulings. You can say that racism had been huge in the country during the 1890's, but the Court's ruling made it permissible to be racist, which is the central point I think. Now we have a similar situation- the mood of the country is leaning towards tolerance of homosexuals and transsexuals. If the Supreme Court makes a ruling saying a law abridging the rights of such people is unconstitutional, am I supposed to believe that won't have an effect on how people behave in the future?
I don't think there's anything to say that this ruling is simply a bunch of guys off somewhere making a decision that everyone ignores. I think, instead, that it's a ruling which not only reflects the mood of the country at the time but also sets the tone for future disputes, which will in turn make people more and more tolerant (and, let us hope, accepting) of the LBGT community as a whole.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the Plessy case preceded an even greater racial conflict than what had been in the country before the ruling- not that the issues of race arose out of nowhere in 1896, merely that they were suddenly magnified because everyone saw "separate but equal" as a chance to practice their own prejudicial behavior in whatever manner they saw fit. I also don't think it's a coincidence that Brown v. Board of Education heightened the racial struggles even more by saying the establishment of unequal treatment in the south had to stop.
Would all these things have occurred all on their own? Perhaps they would. But I'm pretty sure they would have taken longer or would have happened in different ways had not the Supreme Court made its decision.
There is also yet another example. In Dred Scott v. Sanford, the Supreme Court made a ruling which said that black people were not meant to be included as recipients of Constitutional rights and said that Congress has no right to make a law abridging slavery because property rights are sacred (which is found nowhere in the Constitution but is instead an influence of John Locke). I should also like to note that at this time, Abolitionists were gaining steam in the country and that slavery was seen as a dirty practice for a while. In fact, in the Constitution, the phrase "3/5 of all other persons" is written in, not slaves. It didn't take long after this decision that the Civil War began.
Here's some info on that:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html
So yes, looking at the landmark cases they've participated in, as well as the ones that don't get any notice, I would say that the influence of the Supreme Court's decisions on American culture as a whole cannot be ignored.
I suppose if you still disagree with me after reading that, I'll never be able to convince you.