This post is quite non-specific. If it is meant to be an attack on strict constructionism (e.g. someone questioning that the Fourth Amendment can apply to computers because it does not explicitly refer to such), then I have no complaints. If it is meant to be an attack on original meaning (e.g. that the First Amendment guarantees the protection of hate speech because given what was understood about political theory at the time it was inconceivable that it would not do so), then I must disagree. The Constitution's power derives from the constancy of its spirit in time, even if exact details must change to keep up with the changing social and technological landscape; protections that change with the whims of public opinion are not effective as such.
I think this post is meant to call constitutionalism itself into question.
Yes, and like most anti-Constitutionalist arguments it doesn't seem to know what it is arguing against.
