I think its reasonable to argue that the founding documents have become subverted by changes in the political structure of society. From this point of view a too rigid adherence to the founding documents is just as problematic as a too weak one. In the end, it is the citizens which make the difference, not the structures. Any structure put into place will face relentless pressure from those who want power and citizens must be ready to present relentless counter-pressure.

>all you've got is uniform hostility to power

What is the evidence of that? I see a lot of people wanting a) more centralized power and b) who controls it

I mean, no not really. If you quickly go to trail without putting your homework in you're going to get your ass handed to you and sit under a jail for the rest of your life regardless of your actual guilt.

Statistical analysis of how the law actually works is far more valuable than what the law says.

> the European approach to free speech (especially as it's handled in the UK) is incredibly alarming and off-putting.

We do have free speech in Blighty thank you very much. Unlike the current situation in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority (and/or confronting armed police).

If you haven't already gathered, such bogus claims of free speech restrictions in other countries are distracting you from the reality of what is happening in your own country.

> "Private remote communications" like sending a letter have been around forever.

Yes, but it was never more private than the law decided for. Any judge could lawfully have the police tear the envelope apart and read the contents during an investigations. In this sense, the only private communication that ever existed was from mouth to ear.

Today's technology enables actual privacy any anonimity online, and any good and bad deeds can be hidden behind the screen, and nobody should be offended, nor surprised, that civilised societies may want to have a say in the matter.

> It's always a statement 'to protect the children' or 'fight piracy'

Both of which make a lot of sense.

And the contrarian view is always expressed as a matter of "privacy", as if remote privacy had ever existed before a couple decades ago.

Laws must be discussed based on their intentions and their expected result. Inventing dogmas doesn't help societal advancement.

It might be a fair-enough interpretation. For major issues, what's ambiguously said (or unsaid) by Congress can be specifically said (or unsaid) by the Courts.

Point #2 is related, as it also connected to a requirement to interpret "intent", which is a tricky thing even at the best of times.

As for point #3, I can't comment. I don't quite understand Roberts' logic about official vs. discretionary, but I feel it has something to do with original framers' intent also.

"Constitutional" here means, in the court's own words, "common sense" now [1]:

> The doctrine was articulated as a paradigm in FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000), which advised "common sense" in assessing whether Congress intended to delegate broad regulatory powers

Put another way, the court is simply deciding on their own if the other two branches really maent what they'd written into law. Put another way, it's just vibes.

That's not to say there can't be confusing, ambiguous or even contradictory legislative language. As an aside, we had Congress (under both parties) intentionally write ambiguous language knowing federal agencies would interpret it. It was a known consequence. I am, of course, referring to Chevron deference.

Anyway, so the court invented a "common sense" principle and, as they always do in a power grab, they expanded their own principle under Roberts:

> It was applied in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014) and King v. Burwell (2015), with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority in the latter.[2] The Court first explicitly called it the "major questions doctrine" in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), where it held that agencies must point to "clear congressional authorization" for the power asserted in "extraordinary cases"

The Roberts court then went on to use this subjective idea of "clear Congressional authorization" as strike down Covid mandates, student loan forgiveness, the power of the EPA and a bunch of other very political ends. Weird.

And once again, none of this invokes any Constitutional protection or language at all.

Or put yet another way, the Supreme Court has two roles: constitutional interpretation and statutory interpretation. The second one is being the final court of review for any federal or state case. This is a duty they gave themselves (ie Marbury v Madison). So the court gave themselves the authority to review any court decision and then expanded that to use "common sense" as a test for overwriting the will of Congress and the President.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine