You're confusing explicit rights with implicit rights built on precedence. Much of what's considered Constitutional rights is not definite and explicit. Likewise, the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that you have a right to your physical senses as a sentient being beyond ambiguous terms pertaining to welfare. This reminds me of a leading worry during the writing of the Bill of Rights: a worry that the affirmation of some specific humanitarian rights might regrettably lead society into believing that mere omission becomes the grounds for abusing freedoms unstated.

> It is only in the past 50 years that any court has ever held the fifth amendment gave you the right to remain silent, and in fact, precedent was the exact opposite for centuries.

Yes. It became a right. Go ahead and argue all day about what you perceive as fulfilling the qualification of a "right." I'll argue in direct contrast if your interpretation of rights remains narrow and dictated by the past. It won't help the situation at hand. Miranda warnings wouldn't have resulted if it weren't for precedence and perceived rights upholding it. Now the tides shift again. You're free to call this a "return to the past" or a "return to previous rights I think you never had" or whatever you wish. I call it the erosion of rights.

--------------------

Edit:

> But the solution to that is not to pretend they are written into the constitution and then lament a changing ideology of the supreme court, but instead actually put them there.

That would be ideal. That would be a colossal task, indeed, in lieu of a great number of other rights continuing to erode through an oligarchy's surveillance institutions and corporate decree.