I must politely disagree. Consider the Sedition Act of 1789:
"SECTION II. Punishes seditious writings.
1. Definition of offence:
To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of the United States, or to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the government, or to resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations.
2. Grade of offence:
A misdemeanour.
3. Punishment:
Fine not exceeding $2000, and imprisonment not exceeding two years.
Can you imagine the outrage if this was passed today? People would be screaming about the violation of freedom of speech. And yet, this was passed shortly after the Constitution was ratified.
The Constitution was written at the Constitutional Convention. There were 30-40 people attending daily, for almost 4 months. It also had to be ratified by the entire nation, a process that required descriptions in the Federalist Papers.
Madison was the primary author of the Bill of Rights. However, those amendments had to be ratified by the entire nation. We also have no idea what Madison would genuinely say about the modern world
So, whose understanding matter here? Is it only the people who wrote it? The people who ratified it? The judges and public today?
And how easy is it, really, to apply 200+ year old Constitutional provisions to the modern world? Just the other day, Jeb Bush thought it was crazy to apply a 1936 communications law to the Internet -- yet presumably, he has no problems applying principles crafted 1787. Seems a bit selective to me.