If the USC were interpreted that "Freedom of speech" meant only the spoken word, and "freedom of the press" only applied to text printed on paper, in the context of modern society, you'd accept that as valid?
If it was determined that the States could establish state religions and restrict other religions, since the 1A originally only restrained the Feds as some postulate?
It it was found that the printing of fill-in-the-blank warrants, enabling police to essentially search anyone and anything anytime they felt like it, was not a violation of the 4th Amendment "because we need it to fight crime in the modern nation", you'd accept that?
You see my point? If the Constitution is as flexible as a rubber band, then potentially all the restraints could come off.