[Redcloak]

In case you hadn't noticed, it's not the 18th century anymore. I doubt that the Founders would have had an opinion on, let's say, the right to publish on the internet or on any similar subject. As society expands, so does its understanding of the law. Much of what's discussed today was science fiction 50 years ago. Were we to stick to an "antique" view of the Constitution, then the 2nd Amendment would only apply to flintlocks and the 1st Amendment would only apply to Ben Franklin's hand-cranked printing press. You may not like this, but your dislike won't change reality.

[fooman]

I agree with Drudge that founders would have loved the Internet as apposed to the 'Gatekeeper' media that we have now.

It is similiar to the old phamplet presses.

Homo sex is not comparable as 'new technology guns' its an old practise.

[First Amendment]

I doubt that the Founders would have had an opinion on, let's say, the right to publish on the internet or on any similar subject.

You're not even comparing apples and oranges, you're comparing apples and lumps of coal. Publishing on the Internet or a handcranked printing press are essentially the same.

The right to sodomy did not exist when this country was founded and it does not exist now.

What you are espousing is called social Darwinism, moral relativity. It is the "absolute truth" of saying that there Is No Absolute Truth.

. As society expands, so does its understanding of the law.

In other words, as society devolves, what is accepted as normal degrades to include more and more repellent and vicious behaviors.

So if tomorrow or the next year or next decade necrophilia gains a significant following, that can be mandated into a legally protected act because "we're not in the 20th century."