Out of all these, only the last one appears in a Constitutional amendment.

You left off the first 10 amendments on your wheel.
Funny, I don’t see any of those things on your wheel enumerated in the Constitution

I’m glad you noticed, because that is my point exactly.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/28/fact-check-9-things-women-couldnt-do-1971-mostly-right/3677101001/

The only sex-related right protected in the Constitution is the right for women to vote. Literally every other legal protection for women in society had to come from somewhere else. Some very basic freedoms didn’t arrive until the 1970s — coincidentally, the same decade Roe was decided.

The Bill of Rights is great, but it’s not intended to be an exhaustive or static list. Even at the time, the Founders didn’t intend for the Bill of Rights to exclude any right that wasn’t listed. And then, of course, some issues the Founders just plain got wrong — like slavery.

Only one of those is a constitutional right.

UMM hate to burst your bubble but NONE of them are in the Constitution
there is the first amendment freedom of religion, and there is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" that is NOT the same as "separation of Church and state"

The separation of church and state exists as a concept in the constitution. Just because that exact phrase doesn't exist doesn't mean it's not there. The phrase "freedom of religion" also doesn't appear in the constitution, yet it exists

Bull shit Congress shall not establish a religion nothing about separation if there was, we would not be given Catholic charities BILLIONS of dollars to traffic illegal aliens around the country

In fact, the recent court Case involving Maines "Blaine Amendment" says exactly that, there is no "separation of Church and state" only that the state must treat all religions equally before the law

The US government cannot make an establishment of religion and it cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. That's a pretty clear separation between church and state.

It is the exact opposite of seperation of church and state, churches have to be treated as equals to all other organizations and groups they can NOT BE HELD SEPERATE

No, as the clause was meant to protect the connection between church[es] and state[s], if they so choose.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

means Congress cannot establish a religion on the federal level. Nor can it interfere with the exercising of religion, which, incidentally, the modern deliberately erroneous interpretation of the clause in effect at times has and intentionally so.

The entire reason for "shall not establish a religion " is because the founders did not want a church of Egland in America. The church of Egland was persecuting and trampling on the rights and freedoms of other religions and the people to freely express their religious views .

Again, it was to protect state rights and protect them from federal goverment overreach.

How can you lose a Constitutional right if it's not in the Constitution?

Let me ask you this: If your state passed a law making it illegal to eat food (a right which appears nowhere in the Constitution), would you consider your state to be acting within its authority?

If not, why not?

Thanks for providing another BS argument... LOL

So what in your view protects:

—The right to grow your own food
—The right to buy groceries
—The right to cook at home
—The right to eat a meal cooked by someone else
—The right to give away food
—The right to receive food as a gift
—The right to carry food across state lines

Anything? Nothing? Why?

Right to grow food? Do you even follow what's going on right now?

Indeed. Without a written constitutional right to grow & eat the kind of food you want, President AOC + a simple Congressional majority could one day pass a law requiring you to eat bugs to save the planet.

Now, do I think that’s particularly likely? No.

But if that doesn’t concern you, then you’re not following your own conspiratorial thinking to its logical end. You either don’t really think progressive Democrats are as wacky as you say they are, or you don’t really think that progressive Democrats will ever amass that kind of power.

Rights are important, they protect us while the other guy is in charge.

Hot off of Dobbs, y’all are acting right now like you are a silent majority, even as y’all govern from the minority — but the fact is the “pro-life” movement is a last dying gasp of MAGA power. Very soon, thanks to demographic change, the shoe will be on the other foot.

So if you want to be a miserly strict Constitutional textualist about rights, just consider what might happen to you if your least favorite politician gained power.

Because it’s coming!

What do you mean it's coming? LOL

It’s that your whole shtick? Great Reset, New World Order — whatever?

It’s not a conspiracy! It’s coming! I agree with you!

Better get to scribblin’ down them rights to eat beef!

You keep sitting on that fence... LOL

Last thing on your Xmas list is for what you say to actually turn out to be true.

I’m not on the fence… I agree with you… LOL

Yes... actions speak louder than words... OOPS

When people are fully aware that their fanfic propaganda is just an absurd joke.

Didn't NYC prohibit the sales of Big Gulps and other sugary drinks?

Didn't the entire nation prohibit the sale of alcohol once?

Did you know that there are regulations for how much bugs, rodent hair, and poop can be in your food? https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/health/insect-rodent-filth-in-food-wellness/index.html

I think most Americans would agree they don’t want to be eating rat feces — at least, not in an excessive amount. Lol. Apparently, efforts to eliminate rat poop entirely from food processing plants are prohibitively expensive.

A blanket “right to eat food,” if it were actually written into the Constitution, would, potentially, undermine health- and sanitary-focused laws and regulations, in the hands of an ideologically-driven Supreme Court.

A reasonable Supreme Court would of course acknowledge such a “right to eat food” while allowing for reasonable limits on it — the way the 2nd Amendment ought to work, for instance — but these days, who knows?

King Bloomy did.