The sentence inarguably says that the people have a right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. How else other than privacy can that be construed?
There is a grammatical and absurdly reductionist logical case to be made that the sentence doesn't specify, for example, that a search/seizure cannot be constitutionally conducted without a warrant. But you and I are far from the first people to argue about this sentence. The Supreme Court, smart guys who generally understand rights and the Constitution, have consistently agreed that there is no such thing as a reasonable search without a warrant. It takes a much less astute, but still grounded in reality, analysis to see that without privacy, there is no security in papers and effects. In other words, "privacy" is another word for "security in papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures", though not limited to it.
There is an argument to be made exploring "reasonable limits to privacy", starting with warranted searches/seizures. But that's the starting point, starting from a limited privacy right just as all arguments about rights must acknowledge some limits to rights, so long as they're reasonable. Which means "with reasons, governed by the faculty of reason", not just "some arbitrary declaration".
Tell me how to be secure in your papers and effects without privacy.
Or shut the fuck up, cunt. In fact, just shut the fuck up. I'm not interested in hearing anything from you anymore, because your stupid assholery makes anything you say suspect from the start.
Your parser and "live error correction" didn't manage to discover the plain meaning of "America the country" from its context I just repeated.
Not only are you wrong because you're stubbornly ignorant (which we call "stupid"), you're insisting on projecting that onto me. Your opinions of my character coming from a character with your flaws means nothing to me. You have nothing to teach me, and I clearly cannot teach you.
No, we've been "doing the research" for thousands (millions) of years on older animals with shortened telomeres. We don't know what are the effects of eating animals with artifically shortened telomeres their entire lives, perhaps importantly out of sync with other genetic systems found in animals that chronologically young but (perhaps only in some ways, not others) genetically old.
You don't know what is the effect of being born to an animal with the reduced telomeres and possibly other genetic anomalies untested as game stock.
So fuck you. You're such a stupid asshole that rather than just bring up your point for debate, you act like you are in charge of the debate. When you're too stupid to even notice that you could be wrong, which in fact you are. Shut the fuck up if you can't act like an adult in public.
No, what I'm saying is that we know what happens when we eat natural animals in various conditions, including age. We don't know what happens when we eat clones, which differ from natural animals in at least one way we've already found, the telomeres, which has as yet unknown effects. The clones aren't identical to aged animals, either, except in telomeres, which makes their condition unique, and therefore unknown. And therefore not reliably safe.
Again, we don't know how different the telomeres make the clone. Especially the effect on the gamete cells which evidently start out with reduced telomeres compared with the natural genome of the parent.
If you'd actually think about what we're talking about, you might not just blurt out anonymous ignorance.
These clones are not genetically identical to uncloned animals. The newborn clone has the same depleted count of telomeres that the fully-grown animal had when the clone's original tissue was taken from the original animal. But not the amount that a natural animal has when it's born. The adult clone will also have fewer telomeres in every cell than a natural adult.
We don't know that those lowered telomere counts affect the tissue in any way that affects the eater. But we also don't know that it doesn't affect us. We do know that the animals die much younger, because telomere countdowns are directly reflected in the aging process. So a "middle aged" cloned sheep is really like an old natural sheep. And there could very well be many other effects, some of which are much more subtle, some of which could be unhealthy. The FDA should not even allow sale of these animals for food until their hazards are disproven.
But we won't even be able to tell the basic difference by looking at the label. Because the food industry doesn't want us to know, because they have their reasons for cloning that have nothing to do with our health or safety.
That's shows what's unnatural about our government that's protecting these industries, rather than letting us decide how to protect ourselves, when the FDA won't.
What? There's over a year before they'r eout of office. In that amount of time after their inauguration, they'd already spent the surplus, failed to protect us from the planebombs on 9/11/2001, positioned us to invade Iraq (and then did it a couple months later), pulled us out of the ABM treaty triggering Russia's reentry into the nuke missiles race, and any number of things we still haven't heard about because we've been so busy with the rest of those crimes. And that was when they were just getting started. Now they've got huge momentum, and are still starting up screwing machines like this new policy to legally pry into every email. Just this past week they tried to start a war with Iran over a ham prank in Iranian waters they're claiming are "international", while violating the international laws forbidding "warning shots". What else are they doing that we haven't, and won't, even hear about to start fixing? There's no longer any doubt for them to benefit from.
Besides the immediate self defense of impeaching them, there's also the need to stop those powers from abuse by a future president, most likely the Democrat who inherits them in 2009. With much bigger (and this time, real) majorities controlling all of Congress, and likely replacing 2-3-4 of 9 Supreme Court justices, and a Republican Party exhausted and in ruins, they'll be by far the most powerful empire of all time. And desperate with all the debt and structural collapse to "do it the dirty way" because the country is so "ungovernable". Impeachment now, especially by those about to get the power, would be an impediment to keeping the tyranny ball rolling.
Oh yeah, then there's justice. Oaths to defend the Constitution. Accountability. If not now, then there's never going to be a case for impeachment. Impeaching Clinton took a few weeks, and that was moronically contrived bullshit, not a ledger of real treason. Pursuing justice is always worth it, when your country's at stake.
Something that rarely ceases to amaze me on Slashdot is how people are so committed to arguing their point without even bothering to open their eyes that they will say something like that as if it might convince me of something.
Their protections might be suspended or abdicated, but the rights are forever.
That's the entire point of this tortured "debate". I did not say that the rights are suspended or abdicated, but that the government protections could be. I did not say that the protections are forever, but rather the direct opposite. Illustrating the essential point that rights are not given by the Constitution or the government, but rather only the protections are.
I've done all that I can do for you. Evidently, I've actually done more than I can do for you. Goodbye.
What a clown you are. What do all the many Bush/Cheney crimes have to do with the 2000 election, except that's when you voted for them to do all their crimes?
Your "war against Islamic fundamentalism" has done nothing but further endanger us all, make much more popular and powerful assholes like Binladen, Achmadinejiad, the Taliban, while losing two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are creating more enemies than we can kill, all bankrupting us to the profit of the Sauds, the Russians and the Chinese, and killing thousands of American soldiers and maiming more. And again, endangering us even more, both by whipping up more terrorism, and destroying our government's protection of our rights and our citizens' dwindling respect for it. A total catastrophe - that you totally support.
In your world, all lawyers are "ambulance chasers", all powerful women are "feminazis", and a guy named Obama is really "Osama". And when the corporate media who sold you Bush/Cheney says they're all racist, of course they are. But the religious nutjobs who are your greatest allies in "the War of Eastern Aggression" are somehow "suddenly" fiscally socialist after they got robbed by your corporatist buddies who are your second greates allies in "the War Against the Coalition of the Billing". Your salvation? Ron "corporate anarchist" Paul the White supremacist ally and fucking nutjob, and Fred "Grampa" Thompson who doesn't even bother to play an actor running for president on TV.
You people have fucked everything up. That "water" off your duck is much of your country's assets burnt on a bonfire of fake Conservative vanities, producing nothing but an even more dangerous world full of people eager to be our enemies (including former allies).
You've carried nothing but "water" for these fascists, which is just gasoline for the arson. Give it a fucking rest already. And stop calling me your "friend", like some crooked rug merchant.
People around the world are learning to hate Americans, but these science missions that we publish are a gift to everyone that they should appreciate. As long as the Mercurians don't notice that we've invaded their planet right as solar power starts to get a lot of investment.
No those words don't modify the identification of the right. They specify how the government is to protect that right. There is no losing rights under any conditions. They are inalienable. Their protections might be suspended or abdicated, but the rights are forever.
You think it's funny? Then you're even stupider than the Democrats who're letting Bush trash the country so they're guaranteed to inherit whatever's left. Stupid shits like you have flushed our country down the toilet. And you don't even have the sense or dignity to see that it's you they've all "outsmarted". There is no difference between your head and your ass.
If you don't know what country we're talking about when I say
America is built on the simple, but radical (for the 1780s, anyway) realization that people have rights, create governments to protect those rights, so when we create them, we must create them with powers to protect them, but not to abuse them. We have a right to privacy, as the 4th Amendment says. The government exists to protect it,
Or are you going to tell me that, say, the 13th Amendment banning slavery limits only the government from owning slaves?
then that's your "character flaw" at work, not mine.
A country is not merely a geographic region. A country is a political entity. A continent is a geographic region.
I don't think that Amerigo Vespucci lived hundreds of millions of years ago. I think that today's continents formed hundreds of millions of years ago, as I contrasted with the recent founding of America (the country, if you're still not paying attention).
Look, I celebrated the 500th anniversary of Amerigo Vespucci's arrival in Bahia, Brazil right there on the beach. I know what I'm talking about. You, on the other hand, can't even read.
These people are completely insane. They follow up every single total catastrophe in which they made us more endangered while demanding to violate our rights ever more with yet another demand to screw us while just scaring us and endangering us.
I mean, they're still spinning down how a Filipino Monkey almost gave Bush a pretext for armageddon with Iran last week, continuing to blame Iran.
They still act like they don't even really know for sure who is "the enemy" in Iraq, or when the next Taliban attack will show how badly we're losing in Afghanistan to a bunch of medieval hicks hellbent on returning to the Stone Age.
And yes, they're still spying on every email, Web hit and phonecall in the US (hi, Dick!), while hustling to hand telcos amnesty for breaking the law at their request, even though they can't even pay the phonebill so it gets shut down.
These Keystone Konservatives would be hilarious if they weren't the most dangerous people ever in the world.
We have to call our lazy, complacent congressmembers and insist they impeach these criminal retards, instead of just easily running against them this year and inheriting all their catastrophic tyrannical powers.
Yes it is because you don't know the difference between monopoly market control as declared by the US Supreme Court to protect the US market, and the game with "Boardwalk" and "Reading RR". Anonymous twitty Coward.
Even the Second Amendment doesn't say that only the government is prohibited from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. I bet that if the government didn't regulate gun sales, but a gun industry association cartel denied guns to some people (say, redheads), that the exact same gun rights people up in arms today would have the same problem about their right being infringed.
And moreover, the Bill of Rights isn't different in character, scope or basis than are the subsequent Amendments. One of which is the 13th, which outlaws slavery, but clearly doesn't protect our rights to freedom from only government slavers.
Elsewhere in the Constitution there are instructions for the government protecting us from each other, for example in copyrights. But the principle is obvious. Otherwise, where do government employees like police get their powers to stop me from robbing or killing you, since I'm not part of the government?
This is a basic principle. The US Constitutional government wasn't just a handy ticket out of the monarchy. It was an epochal statement of something even more fundamental to humans than is government: human rights. It creates a government to serve, and be subordinate to, rights. Which are described very early in the document as inalienable. Fundamental, essential.
Fuck you. "Secure in their persons, papers and effects" necessarily means privacy. You don't even have the basic logic skills to understand that, and you're blabbering about "irrefutably"? The Constitution is a description of the real world, not just some word game, you stupid shit.
You're not even paying attention here. Of course the 4th Amendment doesn't create a generalized right to privacy. The Constitution doesn't create rights. It says right in the Constitution that rights are inalienable, that they come from a "Creator" (whatever that is, which is a separate argument I'd be glad to win, it's not the Constitution). That the people have these rights, and create a government by creating a constitution giving it powers. Powers to protect those rights.
We don't have to look at "intentions", which is anyone's guess even with private correspondence. Because what they signed, what we live under, what free people agree, is what's explicitly in the Constitution. We can see that indeed the 13th Amendment shows that the Constitution doesn't instruct only the government, but also those people living under the government. It protects people's rights. Or are you going to argue that people do not have a right to be free from slavery, or do so only because a group of people in the mid-1800s intended we have that right?
Rights are universal. But just because the American people have created a constitution instructing our own government how to protect them, doesn't mean we're responsible for protecting other people's rights - even though they have them. Those people are responsible for creating a government of their own to protect their rights with the instructions they are free to specify. Of course the US government has a responsibility to protect American rights, wherever those Americans are located. And when Americans can see how rights can be violated, how a foreign case looks familiar here, we have the right, and the obligation to ourselves, to ensure our government is protecting our rights with instructions appropriate to the current threats. Which are usually new versions of the same threats our forefathers protected us against starting centuries ago, because our rights are still the same, and the value of infringing them about as persistent.
Just because you say so, who cares? You don't even have a flimsy Slashdot ID to see whether you've asserted things in the past, perhaps with a shred of reason attached.
BTW, you can't just say the slavery example must be disregarded, because you say so. It is in fact a perfect example of how the Constitution is instructions for a government to protect our rights, whether from the government or from one another. Copyright is another, and there are others, too. But who cares? You'll just insist the Constitution is whatever you say it is. So what?
There is only one country called "America", the USA. There are two continents called "America" (though usually North or South America). Continents don't have constitutions (the EU and "Australia" notwithstanding), countries (or other federated political unions) do.
It's clear we're talking about the country called "America", not a geographic region, because we're talking about its government (and the events of its founding in a past more recent than hundreds of millions of years ago).
You can try to split hairs, but you just grasped the wrong one.
Slashdot Mirror
The sentence inarguably says that the people have a right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. How else other than privacy can that be construed?
There is a grammatical and absurdly reductionist logical case to be made that the sentence doesn't specify, for example, that a search/seizure cannot be constitutionally conducted without a warrant. But you and I are far from the first people to argue about this sentence. The Supreme Court, smart guys who generally understand rights and the Constitution, have consistently agreed that there is no such thing as a reasonable search without a warrant. It takes a much less astute, but still grounded in reality, analysis to see that without privacy, there is no security in papers and effects. In other words, "privacy" is another word for "security in papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures", though not limited to it.
There is an argument to be made exploring "reasonable limits to privacy", starting with warranted searches/seizures. But that's the starting point, starting from a limited privacy right just as all arguments about rights must acknowledge some limits to rights, so long as they're reasonable. Which means "with reasons, governed by the faculty of reason", not just "some arbitrary declaration".
Tell me how to be secure in your papers and effects without privacy.
Or shut the fuck up, cunt. In fact, just shut the fuck up. I'm not interested in hearing anything from you anymore, because your stupid assholery makes anything you say suspect from the start.
Your parser and "live error correction" didn't manage to discover the plain meaning of "America the country" from its context I just repeated.
Not only are you wrong because you're stubbornly ignorant (which we call "stupid"), you're insisting on projecting that onto me. Your opinions of my character coming from a character with your flaws means nothing to me. You have nothing to teach me, and I clearly cannot teach you.
Goodbye.
No, we've been "doing the research" for thousands (millions) of years on older animals with shortened telomeres. We don't know what are the effects of eating animals with artifically shortened telomeres their entire lives, perhaps importantly out of sync with other genetic systems found in animals that chronologically young but (perhaps only in some ways, not others) genetically old.
You don't know what is the effect of being born to an animal with the reduced telomeres and possibly other genetic anomalies untested as game stock.
So fuck you. You're such a stupid asshole that rather than just bring up your point for debate, you act like you are in charge of the debate. When you're too stupid to even notice that you could be wrong, which in fact you are. Shut the fuck up if you can't act like an adult in public.
No, they are not genetically identical to their uncloned "parent".
And the shortening of the telomeres, the reduced amount of repeated sequences in them, is exactly what I'm talking about.
No, what I'm saying is that we know what happens when we eat natural animals in various conditions, including age. We don't know what happens when we eat clones, which differ from natural animals in at least one way we've already found, the telomeres, which has as yet unknown effects. The clones aren't identical to aged animals, either, except in telomeres, which makes their condition unique, and therefore unknown. And therefore not reliably safe.
Again, we don't know how different the telomeres make the clone. Especially the effect on the gamete cells which evidently start out with reduced telomeres compared with the natural genome of the parent.
If you'd actually think about what we're talking about, you might not just blurt out anonymous ignorance.
In fact all that science can ever do is disprove propositions.
These clones are not genetically identical to uncloned animals. The newborn clone has the same depleted count of telomeres that the fully-grown animal had when the clone's original tissue was taken from the original animal. But not the amount that a natural animal has when it's born. The adult clone will also have fewer telomeres in every cell than a natural adult.
We don't know that those lowered telomere counts affect the tissue in any way that affects the eater. But we also don't know that it doesn't affect us. We do know that the animals die much younger, because telomere countdowns are directly reflected in the aging process. So a "middle aged" cloned sheep is really like an old natural sheep. And there could very well be many other effects, some of which are much more subtle, some of which could be unhealthy. The FDA should not even allow sale of these animals for food until their hazards are disproven.
But we won't even be able to tell the basic difference by looking at the label. Because the food industry doesn't want us to know, because they have their reasons for cloning that have nothing to do with our health or safety.
That's shows what's unnatural about our government that's protecting these industries, rather than letting us decide how to protect ourselves, when the FDA won't.
What? There's over a year before they'r eout of office. In that amount of time after their inauguration, they'd already spent the surplus, failed to protect us from the planebombs on 9/11/2001, positioned us to invade Iraq (and then did it a couple months later), pulled us out of the ABM treaty triggering Russia's reentry into the nuke missiles race, and any number of things we still haven't heard about because we've been so busy with the rest of those crimes. And that was when they were just getting started. Now they've got huge momentum, and are still starting up screwing machines like this new policy to legally pry into every email. Just this past week they tried to start a war with Iran over a ham prank in Iranian waters they're claiming are "international", while violating the international laws forbidding "warning shots". What else are they doing that we haven't, and won't, even hear about to start fixing? There's no longer any doubt for them to benefit from.
Besides the immediate self defense of impeaching them, there's also the need to stop those powers from abuse by a future president, most likely the Democrat who inherits them in 2009. With much bigger (and this time, real) majorities controlling all of Congress, and likely replacing 2-3-4 of 9 Supreme Court justices, and a Republican Party exhausted and in ruins, they'll be by far the most powerful empire of all time. And desperate with all the debt and structural collapse to "do it the dirty way" because the country is so "ungovernable". Impeachment now, especially by those about to get the power, would be an impediment to keeping the tyranny ball rolling.
Oh yeah, then there's justice. Oaths to defend the Constitution. Accountability. If not now, then there's never going to be a case for impeachment. Impeaching Clinton took a few weeks, and that was moronically contrived bullshit, not a ledger of real treason. Pursuing justice is always worth it, when your country's at stake.
That's the entire point of this tortured "debate". I did not say that the rights are suspended or abdicated, but that the government protections could be. I did not say that the protections are forever, but rather the direct opposite. Illustrating the essential point that rights are not given by the Constitution or the government, but rather only the protections are.
I've done all that I can do for you. Evidently, I've actually done more than I can do for you. Goodbye.
Such a clown that you dwell on my calling you a clown, but not all those actual facts about how bad a clown you are.
Clowns that aren't funny are about the most pathetic creatures scarring this Earth. Congratulations!
What a clown you are. What do all the many Bush/Cheney crimes have to do with the 2000 election, except that's when you voted for them to do all their crimes?
Your "war against Islamic fundamentalism" has done nothing but further endanger us all, make much more popular and powerful assholes like Binladen, Achmadinejiad, the Taliban, while losing two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are creating more enemies than we can kill, all bankrupting us to the profit of the Sauds, the Russians and the Chinese, and killing thousands of American soldiers and maiming more. And again, endangering us even more, both by whipping up more terrorism, and destroying our government's protection of our rights and our citizens' dwindling respect for it. A total catastrophe - that you totally support.
In your world, all lawyers are "ambulance chasers", all powerful women are "feminazis", and a guy named Obama is really "Osama". And when the corporate media who sold you Bush/Cheney says they're all racist, of course they are. But the religious nutjobs who are your greatest allies in "the War of Eastern Aggression" are somehow "suddenly" fiscally socialist after they got robbed by your corporatist buddies who are your second greates allies in "the War Against the Coalition of the Billing". Your salvation? Ron "corporate anarchist" Paul the White supremacist ally and fucking nutjob, and Fred "Grampa" Thompson who doesn't even bother to play an actor running for president on TV.
You people have fucked everything up. That "water" off your duck is much of your country's assets burnt on a bonfire of fake Conservative vanities, producing nothing but an even more dangerous world full of people eager to be our enemies (including former allies).
You've carried nothing but "water" for these fascists, which is just gasoline for the arson. Give it a fucking rest already. And stop calling me your "friend", like some crooked rug merchant.
People around the world are learning to hate Americans, but these science missions that we publish are a gift to everyone that they should appreciate. As long as the Mercurians don't notice that we've invaded their planet right as solar power starts to get a lot of investment.
No those words don't modify the identification of the right. They specify how the government is to protect that right. There is no losing rights under any conditions. They are inalienable. Their protections might be suspended or abdicated, but the rights are forever.
You think it's funny? Then you're even stupider than the Democrats who're letting Bush trash the country so they're guaranteed to inherit whatever's left. Stupid shits like you have flushed our country down the toilet. And you don't even have the sense or dignity to see that it's you they've all "outsmarted". There is no difference between your head and your ass.
then that's your "character flaw" at work, not mine.
A country is not merely a geographic region. A country is a political entity. A continent is a geographic region.
I don't think that Amerigo Vespucci lived hundreds of millions of years ago. I think that today's continents formed hundreds of millions of years ago, as I contrasted with the recent founding of America (the country, if you're still not paying attention).
Look, I celebrated the 500th anniversary of Amerigo Vespucci's arrival in Bahia, Brazil right there on the beach. I know what I'm talking about. You, on the other hand, can't even read.
These people are completely insane. They follow up every single total catastrophe in which they made us more endangered while demanding to violate our rights ever more with yet another demand to screw us while just scaring us and endangering us.
I mean, they're still spinning down how a Filipino Monkey almost gave Bush a pretext for armageddon with Iran last week, continuing to blame Iran.
They still act like they don't even really know for sure who is "the enemy" in Iraq, or when the next Taliban attack will show how badly we're losing in Afghanistan to a bunch of medieval hicks hellbent on returning to the Stone Age.
And yes, they're still spying on every email, Web hit and phonecall in the US (hi, Dick!), while hustling to hand telcos amnesty for breaking the law at their request, even though they can't even pay the phonebill so it gets shut down.
These Keystone Konservatives would be hilarious if they weren't the most dangerous people ever in the world.
We have to call our lazy, complacent congressmembers and insist they impeach these criminal retards, instead of just easily running against them this year and inheriting all their catastrophic tyrannical powers.
Yes it is because you don't know the difference between monopoly market control as declared by the US Supreme Court to protect the US market, and the game with "Boardwalk" and "Reading RR". Anonymous twitty Coward.
Even the Second Amendment doesn't say that only the government is prohibited from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. I bet that if the government didn't regulate gun sales, but a gun industry association cartel denied guns to some people (say, redheads), that the exact same gun rights people up in arms today would have the same problem about their right being infringed.
And moreover, the Bill of Rights isn't different in character, scope or basis than are the subsequent Amendments. One of which is the 13th, which outlaws slavery, but clearly doesn't protect our rights to freedom from only government slavers.
Elsewhere in the Constitution there are instructions for the government protecting us from each other, for example in copyrights. But the principle is obvious. Otherwise, where do government employees like police get their powers to stop me from robbing or killing you, since I'm not part of the government?
This is a basic principle. The US Constitutional government wasn't just a handy ticket out of the monarchy. It was an epochal statement of something even more fundamental to humans than is government: human rights. It creates a government to serve, and be subordinate to, rights. Which are described very early in the document as inalienable. Fundamental, essential.
Fuck you. "Secure in their persons, papers and effects" necessarily means privacy. You don't even have the basic logic skills to understand that, and you're blabbering about "irrefutably"? The Constitution is a description of the real world, not just some word game, you stupid shit.
You're not even paying attention here. Of course the 4th Amendment doesn't create a generalized right to privacy. The Constitution doesn't create rights. It says right in the Constitution that rights are inalienable, that they come from a "Creator" (whatever that is, which is a separate argument I'd be glad to win, it's not the Constitution). That the people have these rights, and create a government by creating a constitution giving it powers. Powers to protect those rights.
We don't have to look at "intentions", which is anyone's guess even with private correspondence. Because what they signed, what we live under, what free people agree, is what's explicitly in the Constitution. We can see that indeed the 13th Amendment shows that the Constitution doesn't instruct only the government, but also those people living under the government. It protects people's rights. Or are you going to argue that people do not have a right to be free from slavery, or do so only because a group of people in the mid-1800s intended we have that right?
Rights are universal. But just because the American people have created a constitution instructing our own government how to protect them, doesn't mean we're responsible for protecting other people's rights - even though they have them. Those people are responsible for creating a government of their own to protect their rights with the instructions they are free to specify. Of course the US government has a responsibility to protect American rights, wherever those Americans are located. And when Americans can see how rights can be violated, how a foreign case looks familiar here, we have the right, and the obligation to ourselves, to ensure our government is protecting our rights with instructions appropriate to the current threats. Which are usually new versions of the same threats our forefathers protected us against starting centuries ago, because our rights are still the same, and the value of infringing them about as persistent.
Just because you say so, who cares? You don't even have a flimsy Slashdot ID to see whether you've asserted things in the past, perhaps with a shred of reason attached.
BTW, you can't just say the slavery example must be disregarded, because you say so. It is in fact a perfect example of how the Constitution is instructions for a government to protect our rights, whether from the government or from one another. Copyright is another, and there are others, too. But who cares? You'll just insist the Constitution is whatever you say it is. So what?
There is only one country called "America", the USA. There are two continents called "America" (though usually North or South America). Continents don't have constitutions (the EU and "Australia" notwithstanding), countries (or other federated political unions) do.
It's clear we're talking about the country called "America", not a geographic region, because we're talking about its government (and the events of its founding in a past more recent than hundreds of millions of years ago).
You can try to split hairs, but you just grasped the wrong one.