So, by your standard, the Bill of Rights can’t be “broken” by a lawyer, that is, they can’t get a court to apply it in something other than the intended manner. But virtually every significant phrase in the Bill of Rights has been applied in multiple different ways by different courts over the years, so clearly lawyers have had no trouble breaking it.
While it is in many ways the main provision that gives meaningful impact to rights both in and beyond the BOR (though the 13th Amendment competes with it on that front, since if people can be treated as property instead of people, they have no rights) by applying them to the main locus of government authority, the states, which the BOR itself neglected to do, the 14th Amendment, which was at issue in Dobbs, is not part of the Bill of Rights.
So Dobbs doesn’t illustrate an assault on the Bill of Rights so much as its irrelevancy in the absence of subsequent amendments.
> so clearly lawyers have had no trouble breaking it.
You are missing the point. The point is comparing it to a hypothetical constitution that is 20 pages long, instead of 1 page long.
So, the 20 page long constitution, is probably easier to break, despite you misleading focus, on the irrelevant point, of the exact way the statement was phrased.
