I don't like hypocrites. I don't like them whether they're the Liars for Jesus on the Dover school board. And I don't like them if they're judges on a court that pretends to take the Constitution so seriously on the one hand, while totally ignoring the original intent of it's writers on the other.
My argument on whether the 14th expanded the restrictions in the First is interesting. I don't think there's any way it would gain much acceptance, mainly because the First also contains language about the press, and I doubt if even the Bloggers would stand for any reduction in their rights as now recognized by the courts.
What bothers me the most is that it's apparent that we no longer actually have a constitution at all. The courts rely more on subsequent precedent rather than it's original intent. And the countries leadership won't really stand for removing power from them today, and giving it to those that wrote and ratified the constitution years ago. Thus, Bork was Borked when he tried to lecture the Congress on the Constitution.
We really have an unwritten constitution, like England. I just wish someone in power would be honest and say that out loud.
Sadly, you are all too correct on this. The Constitution today is simply whatever the Supreme Court says it is.