Did you read my entire post? The First Amendment says nothing about the "freedom of expression". However the Ninth Amendment leaves open freedoms which are the property of the People. Check out the Ninth Amendment.
The First Amendment is merely an affirmation of a fundamental right, but not a fundamental right in of itself, meaning, by including it in the First Amendment, and as part of the Constitution it does not make it any more or less a fundamental right. The First Amendment is a concept, and that concept is interpreted by SCOTUS, and SCOTUS makes a finding. Verbal protest is an expression, it is a verbal expression. When I verbalize my discontent to the Government, I am expressing it through my speech.
I should point out that the Constitution serving as an affirmation of 'fundamental rights' is contradictory to the Ninth Amendment.
"The enumeration in the
Constitution,"
What enumeration? Why not enumerations? "Enumerate" seems to be contingent of the number...not as the totality of the document (Constitution). So, the enumeration of the Constitution is determined by those who are in a position to deemed each Amendment to fall under "enumeration."
"...of certain rights,..."
But not all rights? This portion validates my assertion that enumeration does not include all Constitutional Amendments. Of "certain rights?" So, these Rights are merely rights? These so-called "fundamental ((R)(r))ights," or "affirmation of fundamental ((R)(r))ights appear to be dependent of some sort of valuation--some are valued as being Rights, while others are valued at being rights, but 'fundamental' none-the-less. If "rights" are deemed to be "Rights" then they are Rights, but if not, they are "rights." Are Rights any more fundamental than rights? Or are they both fundamental? Rights (and rights) are contingent on whether they are deemed to be fundamental based on ideological factors which impose a value on each instance of what is considered to constitute a Right/right and if deemed fundamental they are included in the framework of the Constitution. Seems like a living breathing document to me.
"...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
LOL, Constitutional Amendment to make marriage between one male and one female?...would that be unConstitutional! Funny. Back on topic, sorry about that...
"Disparage others retained by the people."
So, 'Rights' shall not be used to "deny or disparage" other types of rights which have been valued as 'rights.' rights are retained by the people. How do "the people" retain those rights? And who are the "people?" Are they the majority, minority? SCOTUS seem to make findings of whether a law is Constitutional or not-Constitutional, and of the extent to which the Amendments of the Constitution are applicable to the everyday lives of the people, well, and the Government.
"The enumeration [(number)] in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others [(rights)] retained [(first "deemed," then "held")] by the people."
So, the rights that have been deemed as the peoples rights shall not be used to "deny or disparage" other rights that might be included as the peoples "rights."
There is no thing simple about the Constitution. The document appears superficially to be a congruent document, one that "affirms" some thing(s). But does it? It is merely a constructed framework that is used as an emblem (in-flux) of some notion of personal freedom, of a free society. Is the document necessary to a cohesive society, yes...because the alternative would be worse. Is the document definitive, HELL NO....but it makes for a good document to argue over its meaning until your blue in the face.