A judge may be able to interpret how the 1st Amendment is practiced, but they can never alter the 1st Amendment. That's a huge limitation of power that you're writing off.

I would argue that is a distinction without a difference. If I redefine the meaning of a clause, and my definition now stands as the relevant case law over the actual words, then the fact that I didn't change the words becomes irrelevant because the next argument that comes along has to be based on my interpretation, not the words themselves.

I mean, you very much appear to be making this case based on your OP. You supply this as support for why the constitution is broken;

I apologize if you read into my post. Quite frankly the rest of your reply rests on you painting a position that I never took. The premise is that case law has changed the meaning of the Constitution to a point that we need a new constitution. That does not equate to believing that we should revert to original intent. One can state, quite factually, that our constitution as interpreted does not reflect original intent while simultaneously holding the view that we are not better off in modern times with original intent and believing that we should update the constitution to reflect modern society.

I am sorry, but as long as you have this fundamental misunderstanding your replies are based on a false assumption that, at this point, is an intentional act on your part.