Has the constitution lost it's meaning over the years since it was written in 1787

I am going to start off by saying your grammar is horrible and it is really hard to follow what it is that you are saying. For example, in your first sentence you state the following: "I was listening to some people the other day and we had been talking about how the constitution been more of just a piece of paper more than a guide of how our government should work." You start by saying you were listening to some people and then you switch to say that you as a collective group were talking. Then, you use the wrong case for the verb "to be", stating "we had been" rather than "we were". The following part, "how the constitution had been", follows the same mistake. Corrected, it should read "how the constitution was". Next, you used the prepositional indicator "of" in a statement that is obviously comparative and should be replaced with "than". In the last part of this sentence, you correctly used the comparative pronoun "than", however, you lack a conjunction to tie the two parts together. Your grammatically corrected sentence reads "I was talking to some people the other day about the constitution and how it was more than a piece of paper or a guide of how the government should work but it was blah blah blah." I hope you can understand my frustration. In a debate anytime your grammar or wording is illegible, it takes away from your argument, your credibility, and your clarity. I am by no means a "grammar freak", however, I do expect to be able to read through your argument smoothly and clearly without pausing to decipher the meaning of your words. As I have already used up nearly 1,700 characters deciphering your first sentence and and explaining the consequences of bad grammar in a debate. To begin my rebuttal, I will criticize your response to my first example, the US Patriot Acts. My first criticism of your response is that you never actually attacked my main points, instead you ironically stated that it is alright to listen in on Americans and to invade their privacy which is actually stating that you are for the US Patriot Act and thus not influenced very deeply by the fourth amendment of the Constitution. To recap the fourth amendment of the constitution states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The next part I find hilarious. You begin by stating "Even so the Constitution clearly states "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." So, logically the only interpretation I can really make of this is that you believe it is alright to violate the fourth amendment of the Constitution as long as we maintain the integrity of the sixth amendment. What a joke. If you compromise the integrity of one right of an American citizen, assuring that his other rights still remain does not rectify anything. By your logic, if I cut your arm off but I leave your other limbs intact, I have done right by you. In your first response, I believe it is clear your argument was pretty much an attack against your own position rather than mine. If anything, you actually just reinforced my argument. Well I didn't mention in my first tantrum, but spelling is just as important as grammar. As you stated "Not lets move on to the Butler Act of 1925". To begin, I'll answer your question. The line of power for Congress is drawn at any point not specifically addressed by Congress, the remaining undiscussed areas are up to the States to decide. It is to be understood that all amendments were voted and approved upon by Congress, thus all amendments are to be aptly followed by the States without the authority to make changes within their own state house. Thus, the Butler Act of 1925 was indeed against two different amendments of the Constitution, the first and the tenth. Since the tenth amendment has not been identified in this debate it reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."[1B] Then at the end of your argument you confuse the facts of "the man", Scopes's trial. If you had understood the trial as outlined or as sourced, you would have known that his case was not appealed because of any Constitutional right but instead because the Judge made the mistake of fining Scope himself, when this is explicitly the right of the jury under Tennessee law, not the Constitution. Then to counter your last statement, you miss the point of my argument. Innocent men were put to death by a faulty trial. If capital punishment were not in place these men would still have their lives. You ignored my argument of cruel and torturous punishment of those convicts still waiting on death row, as it psychologically inflicts damage upon those inmates. You also ignored Lafayette's remarks on the capabilities of "human judgement". You state that people are beginning to look at the Constitution more now. Ha, on what grounds do you make this outrageous claim. You have, successfully, strengthened a large number of my arguments in this round. (1) First, you underlining state your position for the Patriot Act which compromises the integrity of the fourth amendment. (2) Then you pretty much state that it is alright for the Patriot Act to violate the fourth amendment as long as the integrity of the sixth amendment. (3) Next, you irrationally state that it was alright for the TN to develop the Butler Act in spite of the first amendment. (4) Finally, you state the Constitutional rights of innocent men were not violated in their unjust execution, which is a direct violation of these men's fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. The fourteenth amendment, section one states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[2B] (4...)If the unjust execution of in innocent man isn't the deprivation of a man's life than I am not sure what is. This is clearly a violation of men's rights yet Capital Punishment stands strong. In conclusion, all of my original arguments have been strengthened by your "counter-argument" this round, your bad grammar, your bad spelling, the absence of clarity in your voice, the lack of in-text identifiers with your sources, and my review of your counter-argument. I expect a better counter argument, with better grammar, a clear voice, in-text identifiers for your sources, and better rebuttals in the next round. Sources. [1B] US Constitution - 10th Amendment - http://www.usconstitution.net... [2B] US Constitution - 14th Amendment - http://www.usconstitution.net...