I have yet to concede (and have no plans to do so) the original point you made, that "if the government made a law restricting free speech, it would be in fact unconstitutional".
I still contend that all laws are opinion, and additionally that what is or is not constitutional is a matter of opinion.
I can hope that the vast majority holds the opinion that restrictions on free speech are unconstitutional, but I don’t trust the majority to know free speech restrictions when they see em’.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
I do agree however that the amendment process was not one which was meant to be done quickly or easily.
The SCOTUS was never supposed to be the supreme arbiter of the US Constitution; Marshall hoodwinked judicial review in 1803.
'The whole universe is going to die!'
Our politicians stretch the interpretation to justify bills and our court system allows it because the justices are more concerned with supporting their beliefs than the constitution itself. We turn a blind eye on what the original intent was. The founding fathers left room for interpretation so that it could mean anything from 1-10. But we are pushing it to mean 20. I don't know if I made my point any more clear.
In the end, I agree that it is up for interpretation, of course. That is the job of the Supreme Court Justices. But they (politicians and justices) aren't doing the job assigned to them. They are doing the job they would prefer to be doing personally.