"You just processed the Second Amendment, right there in your post."
I read it and take the plain English meaning of the words. I did not "process it" as in an application of some: "logic with which the law is processed.", as you claim in 1605. You're applying the logic to the conservation of energy law, concluding that it is invalid as stated and applying the ocndiitonal, which acts as a constraint to regions of space where it's validity holds AND insisting that it's very nature changes according to it's own nature!
Any amount of energy can be represented by a characteristic inverse time quantity. That representational equivalence is a result of the underlying essences of what energy and time are. It's represented by the statement; A=A. One can not write A≠A at some arbitrary interval of time, which is what you are attempting to do. It's the same as claiming the Second Amendment does not mean what it says, because times have changed and we are now in a new time interval.
A conclusion cannot be validated on the basis that the same conclusion is its own premise. This is what you are doing.
You are trying to say that laws of physics have always been true because they have always been true.
But empirical knowledge of the Big Bang tells us that laws of physics were nonexistent surrounding the moment of the Big Bang. This fact obliterates all criticism of religion by secular intellectuals who say religion is invalid because it is “superstition,” where superstition is defined as anything not explainable by the laws of physics.