> But it is possible for a thing to be legal - and constitutional - and in breach of rights which don't need to be named on any paper to still be rights. Like t

> But it is possible for a thing to be legal - and constitutional - and in breach of rights which don't need to be named on any paper to still be rights. Like the right to privacy. Well, much of our current conception of "right to privacy" was invented by the Supreme Court itself so it is true that the Constitution can be interpreted to mean different things as time goes by. But as you point out, I don't see that happening with this Supreme Court. And to get such a right enshrined there would need to be a case to be brought to the Supreme Court in the first place.