Making a list is by definition exclusionary. There are things which are “in,” and all the rest is “out.” That is why the current fanatic devotion of “constitutionalists” who focus on the “founders’” original thoughts of “enumerated rights” is so corrosive to our society.
Those who actually study history know that the real founders did not want to include the first ten amendments _ The Bill of Rights. They actually claimed that by proclaiming some rights, they were trivializing others just as important. In the end, they went along but more in the line of “for example”, then “this one only.”
They were wise enough to understand time changes things, and they were masters of balancing dynamics. How could they possibly know what society would consider necessary in the future? They were humble enough to think that their careful system of checks and balances would work it out. Flawed perhaps, but possible.
I think they would be aghast that pseudoscientific lawyers have been trying to make each of their decisions a kind of holy writ. Instead of rights, we have commandments. And if we have need for new ones _ too bad. Whatever they did not think of “need not be considered.”
I hate it when very intelligent people get swept into a fanatic mania. It all has happened before, and is often a precursor to inquisition and enforced dogma.
HuntingtonHarborThoughts 