[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.

[Captain Jack Aubrey]

You said: "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."

How can anyone know what rights were "retained by the people" at the time the constitution was ratified unless we look at the rights the people had at that very time.

Put another way, how can a right be retained by the people if it did not exist when those very people ratified their constitution.