it’s a nice thought but it is indeed so naive an idea that, for example, it took less than a year for the explicit enumeration of certain rights to be amended i

it’s a nice thought but it is indeed so naive an idea that, for example, it took less than a year for the explicit enumeration of certain rights to be amended into the Constitution. (originally it was hoped that much of the bill of rights would be implicitly understood from the original text; turns out, it was not). Like it or not we do seem to need a (known to be non-exhaustive) list of categories to point at and occasionally update and say “these are things about persons that you cannot use against them”. In the context of modern discrimination law, these are called “protected classes”, and it seems wise to add caste to the list: https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protecte... You could well argue that caste is implicit in either religion or race, but it’s a lot simpler to just enumerate it again and be clear at the cost of a little redundancy, especially when we know that these words are going to be sliced and diced as carefully as possible by adversarially-minded legal experts to their advantage.