When interpretations of the meaning of the Constitution differ the one last held by the Supreme Court has the (current) final say. The constitution is by necessity an interpretive document because we don't have a Constitutional Oracle to perfectly map concepts and words for centuries back onto the technological landscape of today.

"Shall not be infringed" is a super common refrain among the 2A crowd but taken hyper literally you couldn't take guns away from criminals actively in prison.

I think civil forfeiture is far outside the bounds of what could be condoned under the Bill of Rights but my interpretation only matters at a distance of influencing representatives to pass laws or the SC to rule differently.

Until it gets overturned. The problem is they don't let things go to trial to get it overturned

Libel law disagrees with the Constitution by a literal reading. So does banning human sacrifice in religious services. We still treat them as legitimate.

Libel is a civil matter. The government can't charge you with libel.

The government provides a judge and courtroom, decides the result, and enforces the judgement.

If you prefer a criminal matter, swap it out for fraud.