Unfortunately, that's not enough. The Constitution needs a reset too. The 4th Amendment does not guarantee privacy, no matter what a bunch of web sites and people with an agenda say. All the 4th stipulates is what the government can do to citizens, like about search and seizure, though there are some important exceptions. (For example, as was in the news recently, border agents can force you to allow them to search your phone or other electronic devices.)
[It's supposed to force a government to have a warrant before searching and it's supposed to bar seizure of property without returning it or compensation, too. The latest "violations" (arguably not a violation of the requirement for probable cause if someone has been chased on suspicion of being involved in a crime) are often in cases of people who are in the country illegally which is, itself, a crime. They're allowing warrantless searches on a larger scale- deep down, I still believe that we don't have much to worry about as long as we're not doing anything wrong but once they start, it's like a vacuum cleaner salesman getting their foot in the door- pretty soon, they're sitting at the kitchen table asking for more coffee.]
Nor does the 1st Amendment specify separation of church and state either. It just says the government can't establish a state religion. (Like the Church of England.) Many US citizens think they have rights that they really don't.
[It's supposed to prevent an official religion and from that religion having a say in how the government operates and another goal was to allow people to observe their religion freely. The Pilgrims left their homelands to get away from anything Catholic and this is a clear sign of the wishes to leave the power wielded by the RC Church. The Church of England wasn't like the Catholic church, which hoovered money from people to pay "indulgences" in hopes of securing a place in heaven and it certainly wasn't responsible for the inquisitions.]
We don't really have a right to free speech in every situation either. Your employer can fire you for exercising it, if they don't like what you're saying. My point is that lots of people mix up what the government is allowed to do, and what private citizens and companies are allowed to do.
We're trying to stretch a Constitution created mostly in the 18th century by a bunch of men that thought religion was paramount, but holding slaves and treating women like second-class citizens was perfectly okay. I suspect that if any of us could go back in time and meet the founding fathers we wouldn't like them much.
[Some of the early settlers didn't practice and it wasn't necessary to observe a particular religion, although members of the Free Masons are supposed to believe in a higher power, in whatever form they prefer. The thought of a government forcing people to observe one religion would make me want to move away, too.
WRT freedom of speech- in public and off of company time, we're still pretty free to say what we want but nobody ever said that a job is a democracy. Whether people should say and write everything they do is up for debate.]
So all we have is the hope that the Supreme Court will be biased in their interpretations of an ancient Constitution the way we like.
[As long as it isn't biased against personal freedoms, we should be OK. What I don't like is when a tiny group gets all butthurt about being "oppressed" when it's more a matter of not many people caring one way or another and will probably never run into one of them, anyway. If some group is truly being victimized and oppressed, it should stop unless they instigated the problems, IMO.]
The internet has always had a let-the-user-beware foundation. It would be nice to have 21st century laws to provide freedom and privacy on a 21st century technology the country can't really run efficiently without anymore, but we don't elect congressmen based on how smart they are.
[That may be, but it wasn't as full of malicious dirtbags writing viruses, bots and Trojan Horses. Compared with the original intent, it went off the rails a long time ago. OTOH, I have heard that the first e-mail was porn, so....]
Perhaps we need to go back to the old scheme where the state legislatures elected senators, and then changed the system to empower the senators elect a president, and the House would be the only body sullied by populism. Only joking... or maybe not...
[With people buying influence, are we really far from that?]
