Initially I wanted to post this in a place where I am arguing for better access to the judicial system then thought that it can also serves a better purpose here.
It might has been well over a century since the second amendment became useless for the purpose for which it was created while its opportunity cost in terms of danger on civilian life became more and more significant. Nevertheless you continued your implementation of it blaming that on the constitution. Similar to how some claim serving a religion in order to satisfy some psychological issues, it seems that you continued this in service of your own psychological issues.
The court system in this country still acts like it is a century old or more when it comes to serving complaints on defendants and the related FRCP Rule 4. Courts and plaintiffs spends considerable time working for and arguing for serving the defendants in a complaint through methods and means that represented all the available communication means at those old times. Judges who are supposed to be able to evaluate the reasonability in things far from their profession implement this meaningless wasting of resources limitations that serves no reasonable purpose.Where is the reasonability when a defendant comes to the court to argue for dismissal of a complaint because he was not "served" according to these old methods even though by his coming to the court he acknowledges knowing about the complaint filed against him. In fact, instead of worrying that someone who did not appear was not served, courts work the opposite way. Courts take proof of service on its face and count the defendant as being served unless he or she appears to contest that service.
Now let me ask you this: Did the constitution also tells you to do that? The "due process" requirement as it relates to the subject here is about making the defendant know about the complaint being filed on him regardless of the kind of the reasonable manner or mechanism used to achieve that. No, the constitution did not tell you to do that. But like the issue with the second amendment it shows fixation on old times to create an identity.
