Illusion is correct. That obscure document is just that, obscure. The constitution is interpreted to mean or not mean certain things. Who does the interpretation? The U.S. Supreme Court. If the Sup Ct says that the 1st amendment right to free speech does not protect defamation of character, then slander and libel are not protected by the constitution and one is liable for them. Also, read closely, the 4th amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure hinges on the definition of unreasonable. What's unreasonable? Well, its what the Sup Ct says it is. What if a police officer were to pull you over for a light out on the license plate, then pat you down, and if he feels something in your shirt pocket that crinkles and pulls it out and its rolling paper and then searches your car and opens the bags in your car and finds contraband and arrests you? Is it therefore unreasonable search and seizure to arrest you? Nope, its not. Under the auto exception, its permissible. Thei only violation might be the officer reaching in your pocket and I can assure you that a motion to suppress based on Terry v Ohio etc, has a high probability of failing. Hang your hat on that obscure document without reading the mile of shelf space interpreting that document and you're in for a surprise. Yup, the Sup Ct decides what you can and cannot do based on your Constitutional rights, and guess what, here's the rub... not one of you ever voted for a sup ct judge. But I digress. Don't do kazaa. Don't do warez. And if folks think Miranda will protect them after public admissions, think again. Miranda was watered down a lot since the days of Jim Miranda and his Arizona case. Rules of evidence currently allow miranda violations to be heard by a jury. Ok, I'll stop now.