holy crap! "granted by the US Constitution" - wow, where to begin?
Here, how about this: our 'rights' are not granted by the Constitution, they are emphasized, publicly proclaimed. The Constitution delineates the rights and responsibilities of the GOVERNMENT. Anything granted can be taken away.
Rights that are not backed by Law do not materially exist. That is why the Bill of Rights (and related documents in other countries) had to be written in the first place.
The debate about the Bill of Rights went like this:
For: Let's enumerate some rights, just in case future generations are stupidly literal about things and get confused because it's not all written down for them.
Against: Bad idea! By writing some down, we might create the impression that those are the ONLY rights.
For: Well then we'll make the 10th Amendment a catch-all, so it's crystal clear that rights exist beyond those we've enumerated so far.
------
So did the 10th Amendment work? It seems like probably not, since people so frequently refer to the Bill of Rights as proof that the Constitution "grants" rights--rather than the intended effect, which is that the Bill of Rights limits government power over rights that already (and always) exist.
Here, how about this: our 'rights' are not granted by the Constitution, they are emphasized, publicly proclaimed. The Constitution delineates the rights and responsibilities of the GOVERNMENT. Anything granted can be taken away.