Where does the Constitution state that an unborn child is a life that enjoys constitutional protections? Where does the Constitution state that notwithstanding the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech as a fundemental right, a person can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater or verbally threaten the POTUS? Where does the Constitution define ths scope of the equal protection clause? Does the clause literally mean that the government must treat everyone equally as to both benefits and burdens, or is the goverment allowed to draw classifications among her citizens even though not specifically authorized in either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments? Where does the Constitution allow government to seize a person's private property when the property consists of that person's stash of marijiuana, heroin, or cocaine?
If you want to be a strict constituional constructionist, then you will need to be able to answer these questions and others like them using nothing other than the exact text of the Constitution itself. If you rely upon sources outside the four cornersof the Constitution, then by necessity, you are actively engaging in subjective construction.
Neither does it state that YOU have a right to breathe. It isn't the Constitution's job to do that. There is nothing paradoxical about this and our drug laws. When the Constitution was written, you could put ANYTHING into your body completely legally.
As for abortion, when the Constitution was written, second trimester abortions were illegal, based on the understanding a fetus was unambiuously alive at that point. Of course nothing except the odious Roe decision has changed. Not one letter of the Constitution changed.
People get on the slavery horse at this point to challenge Originalists, but slavery was challenged from before the Founding. It was hardly a settled issue.
Question 1
"Where does the Constitution state that an unborn child is a life that enjoys constitutional protections?"
Amendment V, since an unborn child can be nothing but a human being.
Question 2
"Where does the Constitution state that notwithstanding the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech as a fundemental right, a person can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater or verbally threaten the POTUS?"
"Fire in a crowded theatre," you can be denied the "right of free speech" by the property owner, or in other words, there is no Amendment I protection on private property. Xivilly and crimminally you can be held accountable for the "injury" and "damage" you cause for that action, primarily a "state" function. It is thus not an Amendment I issue.
"Verbally threaten the POTUS," no such power exist for Congress to pass such a law, thus unconstitutional.
Question 3
"Where does the Constitution define ths scope of the equal protection clause? Does the clause literally mean that the government must treat everyone equally as to both benefits and burdens, or is the goverment allowed to draw classifications among her citizens even though not specifically authorized in either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments?"
"is the government allowed to draw classifications," not authorized, so unconstitutional.
Question 4
"Where does the Constitution allow government to seize a person's private property when the property consists of that person's stash of marijiuana, heroin, or cocaine?"
It doesn't, so such laws are unconstitutional.
But again, I will ask you.
Amendment IX, clearly states "rights." Not fundamental "rights." Just "rights."
How did past judges, (I say past, because recent Supreme Court rulings are moving away from the notion of "fundamental rights" to the notion of "liberties.") properly and textually construct and interrupt the clear statement of Amendment IX concerning "rights" (which implies limitless rights) to the anti-liberty declaration that "rights" have to be "fundamental" in order to have constitutional protection?
It is obvious that the notion of "fundamental" rights is pure judicial dictum. Again, blatant judicial activism which has led to the denial, disparament, and diminishment of liberty in this country.
"Rights" are limitless unless the exertion of a right by one person infringes on the rights of another person, then government, primarily, state governments, have the power to "regulate" the exertion of rights for the protection of everyone's rights.
Stop signs, for example, at a 4 way intersection.