Certainly, in order for the Constitution to spell out our inalienable rights by law, they had to list them (or enumerate them). This is the Bill of Rights. However, the rights themselves, are not "enumerated" because they can't be.
You see, I happen to think this assertion from Mojo about "enumerated rights" cuts right to the heart of liberal vs. constitutional conservative philosophical difference. The Liberal believes our rights are not inalienable, and not endowed by any Creator, they are granted to us... enumerated, by the Constitution and the Supreme Court determines how these enumerated rights are doled out, on the basis of social importance. I believe we have inalienable rights, not enumerated, not listed in order of importance, or granted to me by government and the constitution, but endowed by my Creator and unable to be alienated by a government, by a court, or by a liberal pinhead who is looking for social justice.
You can, of course, think what you want. But the fact is your concept of what is meant by the term enumerated is completely devoid of anything bearing to reality. The term enumerated has nothing to do with prioritization, doling out, or anything else you complain about. Enumerated means they are specifically listed within the Constitution. Nothing less, nothing more. If it is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is "enumerated". That applies to structure and powers as well as rights. (why do you think the term is applied to all concepts?)
There are certain structures of government which are enumerated. The houses of Congress, the President and veep, and SCOTUS with the rest of the federal appeals courts. And then there are positions which are granted, but not enumerated, such as the various posts - most of which were created much later - of the President's cabinet.
Just as powers of the government are enumerated, so are some (but not all) of our rights. The difference being the government is (supposed to be) limited to those powers enumerated, whereas our rights do not have any such limit. The 9th and 10th Amendments are polar opposites in intent. The 9th says that rights which are not enumerated still exist, (which, if I read you correctly, should satisfy your concern that rights are "doled out"). And at the other end, the 10th does the opposite for government by stating if the power is NOT enumerated, then it does NOT exist. (Which is, without a doubt, the most violated portion of our Constitution throughout our history.)
Now, a right which is traditionally considered to be "inalienable" can also be enumerated. In fact, in many cases the very reason for enumerating a right is BECAUSE the founders felt it was inalienable, and therefore bore specific mention in that document whose entire
purpose is to
protect our inalienable rights. And then there are those which the founders deemed essential to
keep our inalienable rights. Free speech, press, RTKABA, etc. are essential to maintaining the inalienable right of Liberty.
In short, calling something enumerated in no way diminishes its status as an inalienable right. Your are, quite simply, way off base with your complaint on that.
