US Constitution AND your rights,
US Government VS your rights

Word "rights", in every instance here, means natural rights.

US Constitution does not *GIVE* you any rights.

Every person intrinsically *HAS* natural rights.
US Constitution *RECOGNIZES* a person has these rights,
requires government to *RESPECT* these rights.
[note]

"Bill of Rights" is merely a label.

"Bill of Rights" was never written in US Constitution.
It's only an outside label, a mnemonic, that now refers to first 10 Amendments.
[note]

Rights exist whether codified or not.

During creation of what is labeled "Bill of Rights", some founders argued against attempting to enumerate (list) every right, predicting government would disregard a right, as if it didn't exist, if it wasn't listed, or people would never imagine they had other rights besides those listed. This argument led to 9th Amendment.

Rights cannot be repealed.

Laws can be repealed. But a right is NOT a law.

Amendments which relate to rights never become obsolete.

Rights never become obsolete, neither Amendments that relate to those rights.

Notes

  • Word "rights" used here refers to "natural rights", which differs from higher-level "legal rights". Philosophy of natural rights.
  • [US Constitution does not *GIVE* you any rights:] An argument is higher-level "legal rights", such as right-to-trial, is GIVEN or GRANTED by US Constitution. That view is valid, but US Constitution was written, in every case, according to the principle that a person already *HAS* an existing right.
    accused shall be GIVEN the right to a speedy and public trial
    accused shall ENJOY the right to a speedy and public trial
  • [Bill of Rights is merely a label:] This label has caused misunderstandings, some incorrectly equate an Amendment (a law) with a right. Supreme Court itself recently failed to maintain this distinction by writing "Amendment right" (for brevity?) and "operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms [DC vs Heller]".