E.g. whether it's OK for the government to check your email if you already give it to an email provider vs snail mail, and such BS. Or whether idiots with gun fetishes for "protecting their property" are what was meant by "well armed militias"...
2) The 2nd amendment doesn't say you have the right to join a militia. It protects the right to bear arms. I assume you wouldn't agree with taking a similarly narrow approach to the right to free speech, for example.
Want to bet that in 20 years, we refine that to "strict scrutiny applies only to to the individual right to bear the specific kinds of arms used in a well-regulated militia, and rational basis to all other arms"?
Get real. Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws has never been "blatantly obvious". Your viewpoint is yours and your bias is confirming it.
Well, it has always been subject to the political pressure from various lobbies and interests...
Judges can write whole treatises with delicate legal interpretations to justify their alliances, government pressure and/or under the table money.
Kind of like medieval religious scholars could write treatises on how many angels fit on the head of a pin -- it pays well and furthers their friends cause.
Between those issues, the death penalty, three strikes laws, and such -- not to mention widespread litigation mania--, the legal code there is kind of the joke in the western world.
Says who?
We had quite a lot of privacy in public spaces before everybody and his dog yielded a cameraphone.
Privacy is not a binary ("oh, since you can be seen by people passing by in public anyway, it means you don't have any privacy") -- it's a spectrum. You could still be OK with people seeing you, but not with being photographed AND tagged automatically (e.g. with timestamp and GPS from a friend's phone) AND posted online AND indexed and available for anybody in the world to search for your name/pictures in perpetuity...