They did not lay down rules for technology that are out of date because they had no concept about Twitter. What they laid down were rules for the government that are just as applicable today as they were 200 years ago. I think that proves they were smarter than you, and that you are not qualified to have an informed opinion about anything the subject at all.
It's not necessarily rules for technology, although clarifications or additions to concepts that can be more easily applied to modern technology wouldn't hurt.
But look at the debates over the citizenship clause as just one example. When that was written, there was no concept of controlled immigration or of illegality being a status rather than a behavior. That's something that has changed dramatically, yet the old language that was not intended to cover today's circumstances are being applied - because that's all the courts have, so that's what they have to use. They can't amend the thing, but they get bitched at for the result.
And, as far as I know, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from making laws about immigration. In fact, quite a few laws exist that cover that already, and the Supreme Court apparently has no problems with them. I also believe that the court has ruled that Congress even has the power to define exactly what is, and is not, meant by the words used, like natural born citizen.
The only serious problem we have now regarding immigration is the result of an Amendment to the original language of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment bestows citizenship on every person born in the US, so trying to blame the original language and saying that the Constitution should be easier to amend doesn't make sense. That would just open us up to more problems that we don't need, just like every state that has a bunch of amendments and later revocations of those amendments. Do you really want to see more mistakes like prohibition eneacted on a national scale?
Did you spend a lot of time thinking about this? Sure, Congress makes no laws about immigration. It doesn't make laws about a LOT of things Congress feels free to usurp from the states. The Right to unjoin (secede) from a something one voluntarily joins comes to mind.
You idiots like to make your own definitions of the Constitution up when you're dumber'n fucking bricks. Learn to read and comprehend.
The Union, in 1868 with the Marshall v Texas decision which is based on NOTHING TANGIBLE made the Fed omnipotent. Except not if you can read and comprehend English. Anyone that can, knows that the Fed used force of arms to subjugate people attempting to exercise their First Amendment Rights. The Right to be free.
Now, you take your little lame ass argument back your basement and re work it until it's actually legal according to the Constitution.