Not exactly. The Bill of Rights was added later to explicitly identify a number of the most important rights of the people. These were originally implied; everything not mentioned in the Constitution is a right of the people.
>everything not mentioned in the Constitution is a right of the people.
Prior to the Bill of Rights, that was not the case. As I mentioned elsewhere, the "everything else is a right of the states or the people" clause is in the tenth amendment.
Edit: AND in the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Yes, the 10th Amendment makes explicit the fact that all rights not mentioned in the Constitution are inherent rights of the States and the People. This was implicit before the Bill of Rights, but it lead to a lot of confusion. At the time, most governments had all rights implicitly with a sovereign, and the people only had the rights that were explicitly granted to them. Our founders intended to flip that relationship, but since many people didn't get it, they had to add the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately many people still don't get it, despite what the 10th Amendment says.
Deeply rooted does not imply deeply rooted in the constitution of the United States.
I believe the US mindset is supposed to be that the constitution does not give you rights - rights are inherent. the constitution sets limits on what rights the government can take away.
Doesn't it also have a clause that says anything not declared in here are relegated to the states, or to the people?
PEOPLE have an expectation of privacy. PEOPLE make laws.
You're mistaken about how that works. Amendments amend what comes before them. In the most absurd case, that logic could be used to say that the 3/5ths compromise is "more deeply rooted in the Constitution" than the 14th Amendment.
Courts have long recognized that the Copyright Clause exists "in tension" with the First Amendment and, therefore, have tried their best to harmonize the two.
"Courts have long recognized that the Copyright Clause exists "in tension" with the First Amendment and, therefore, have tried their best to harmonize the two."
Can I get a citation for that? It seems very interesting, and I hadn't heard of it before.
There's also a lot of stuff on LexisNexis, but that costs quite a bit of money unless you know someone with a subscription. This one appears more relevant, but quotes me a price of $12.50+tax:
"A REGULATORY THEORY OF COPYRIGHT: AVOIDING A FIRST AMENDMENT CONFLICT"
I should mention that other courts have said that they don't see the interplay between the Copyright Clause & First Amendment as "tension", but instead view things like fair use as "safety valves" that prevent the two from being in conflict.
Whatever words you use to say it, the fact is that the courts do their best to uphold both, rather than choose one or the other. Whether one sees the considerations in reconciling the two as "tension" or believes that their approach harmonizes the two, it's something the courts weigh carefully.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause