Too annoying to go back and pull quotes:

Intent vs. Intended:
There are 2, count 'em 2, sentences in the quote. Try using them both.

Publishing:
Writing on the bathroom wall is STILL publishing and the government can't stop you from doing so. The owner of that wall however, is completely within his/her property rights to not allow you to deface/damage their property. After all, your rights end, where someone else’s begins.

2nd amendment:
Fissionable material is a health hazard and regulated under those auspices, and you also have to find someone willing to sell it to you. The 2nd amendment allows you to have a weapon; it does not guarantee the availability of any weapon you desire.

Well regulated militia:
Learn what a dependant and independent clause/phrase is and your confusion will go away.

Self incrimination:
So eye witnesses to a crime must be blindfolded before being allowed to identify a criminal so that the suspect's own body (physical appearance) can't be used to convict them? Yeah... try again.

Search:
Car is personal property and property is protected in the Constitution. Once more, try again.

Words:
Meaning/Usage of words do change over time. That is why when reading a document you MUST use the definition in place when the document was written. That was his whole freaking point.

Bill of Rights:
I completely fail to grasp whatever point you thought you were making.

Judicial Review:
No it is not a specific power granted to them; feel free to come up with a better method though. However, they are expressly granted authority "to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party" and well if I am attempting to sue the US to strike down a law, I am definitely engaging in a controversy "..to which the United States shall be a Party"

Drugs:
Marijuana and other drugs are banned under the FDA using the interstate commerce clause. Frankly I think the ISC clause is the most overused and abused clause in the Constitution. The Obamacare ruling is one of the few to place ANY restrictions on its use, and IMO didn't go far enough.

Florida 2000:
SCOTUS ruled that Florida had to abide by Florida's own law which stated that the election had to be certified by a specific date. SCOTUS simple overruled FL's high court that decided the state did not have to abide by its own law. SCOTUS did not change FL's election law. They did not "hand the election" to someone. They prevented FL's court form changing the rules of the election after the election had already been held. PLEASE stop trying to rewrite history.