[Captain Jack Aubrey]

You said: "Because "Rights possessed by citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution" is not the same as rights retained by the people."


You may not think so, but as a legal doctrine, it is exactly the same thing. That is what the Originalist Theory of Constitutional interpretation is all about.

What did the language mean to the people who wrote it and ratified it.

[Durus]

"You may not think so, but as a legal doctrine, it is exactly the same thing. That is what the Originalist Theory of Constitutional interpretation is all about."

Again I disagree as it has nothing to do with doctrine or Original constitutional interpretation. You place an artificial limit by the false statement "Rights possessed by citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution" where no constitutional limit exists. Unless a right is transferred to the government (federal or state)as a power then the right is retained by the people...period. That was the original intent of the constitution.