[zeugma]

Talking while on a cell phone is not a Constitutionally protected right, for starters.

Wow.

So you're on record then, saying that if it is not a specifically unambiguous enumerated right specifically spelled out in the Constitution that it doesn't exist?

All I can say is, wow.

[zeugma]

To follow up my previous post, it would appear that Hamilton was right in Federalist 84. He feared that by including a list of specific rights in the Constitution, the door was being opened to the concept that anything not enumerated wasn't a right.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.