Some people twist the words of the Constitution to their own ends. They even totally misuse the idea of what the founders originally meant in it. Like with the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment clearly says that "a well regulated militia" is what they are talking about, and "being necessary to the security of a free State" it goes on. Like Chief Warren Burger said about conservatives (himself a staunch conservative) on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour in 1991, they make themselves sound like idiots, when they claim that's what says and that's what they meant. Because, you know, an originalist will tell you. The Constitution can't have every little necessary word in it to make the meaning clear. They'd run out of room. It only has the most basic words in there. And it only has the most basic rights. (That is why search and seizure and the separation of church and state are in there. They were already in most states' statutes at the time. They put both in the Bill of Rights, because they were fundamental to freedom and justice. They were basic.) Of course there's more to the Second Amendment. James Madison, who help draft the Bill of Rights, wanted to include "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person". Which was not put in the Second Amendment. Because it is so obvious. Did you read what he said? And did you know that still applies? Catholics can never join the military. And they certainly can never own guns in the United States. Because then they might try to establish a Catholic theocracy by overthrowing the US government. Like Pope Pius V tried to do in England in 1570! Duh. Warren Burger also said in that interview in 1991 he'd repeal the Second Amendment if he could. It doesn't apply anymore, he pointed out, because it's stupid. And, Catholics are allowed now to join the military, by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Only that never applies to the federal government, and therefore military. But in Bolling v. Sharpe, 1954, the US Supreme Court said the equal protection of the 14th Amendment DOES apply to the federal government, because they just left that out in 1868. How careless. No they didn't! It's not in there, so there's no equal protection on the federal level. Therefore, Catholics cannot own guns or ever serve in the military! (Knock on wood, with that last one BTW.) But you know, speaking of useless, obsolete clauses in the Bill of Rights. Below the Second Amendment, there's the Third Amendment: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law". Because if they tried to make a member of the military sleep in your house and if you had to serve him breakfast every morning too, you'd object. Actually though, don't worry. That hasn't happened at all in the US, ever. And the last time if even came up was during the American Revolution. But, on the other hand, it has been used to find a general right of privacy, even before Griswold. In 1952, with Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer, which limited the president's power to seize private property, even under the doctrine of sovereign domain. It also showed, the SCOTUS has always said, that the military should be kept strictly subordinate to, and governed by, the civil power. (Plus forcing you to allow some army guy to use your bathroom and eat your food is just wrong to begin with anyways. I mean think about it.) Also, on privacy, and why it is clearly part of English common law here in the US. Like Sir Edward Coke said in 1604, a man's home is his castle. Coke was referring to knock-and-announce too. That means a law enforcement officer has to announce their presence and provide residents with an opportunity to open the door before a search. Because, he was pointing out, you could never do that at Windsor Castle, where the king lived. Why should the king be able to do that at your "castle" then. That all shows there is clearly more in the Constitution about privacy than modern conservatives will let onto. But they say the Third Amendment is old and outdated, and obsolete too. Yet they hold onto the Second Amendment. And reinterpret it too. Go figure.
Yeah, some rights in the Constitution are so important, they don't need to be named. And some are implied. Like the right to freedom of association and right to freedom of thought. Which are both found to be necessary, to make the freedom to peaceable assembly and freedoms of speech and religion, exist. I learned in a political science class in community college in 1997 that some rights, like academic rights, are not in the Constitution at all. They never have been, and no judge ever said they were. That's the right to research things, like diseases. And then the right to enjoy those cures for diseases. Most modern constitutions have academic rights. We don't. Though I am sure no state would ever violate that right. Or so they say. There is also, interestingly, no right to drink or dance, in the Constitution. Which is why so-called blue laws are never struck down.
