> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

These are the goals of the US, one of them is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Where liberty in this context means:

> As used in the Constitution, liberty means freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual. Freedom from restraint refers to more than just physical restraint, but also the freedom to act according to one's own will.

Everything else is trying to achieve the above stated goals. The current set of constitutional articles describing how the political processes are setup, the bill of rights, the laws that are put in place, the courts, all that is just the mechanisms that hopefully allows us to deliver the stated goal.

> The Constitution might never have been ratified if the framers hadn't promised to add a Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the Constitution gave citizens more confidence in the new government and contain many of today's Americans' most valued freedoms.

Furthermore, to really drive the point that the constitution was going to truly and seriously protect people's freedom, and that it wasn't just empty words, the bill of rights was added, but obviously not able to cover all scenarios and liberties ever current or future, but at least a large set of them made explicit.

So no, I'd have to disagree with you, states cannot just restrict any aspects of your life that isn't explicitly listed in the bill of rights, because the constitution itself sets out to say that the government as described in the constitution is meant to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The amendments were added for clarification to specific rights, not as an exhaustive list, they don't set out to say, those are the only freedoms that are guaranteed, they simply explicitly state that those are very clearly guaranteed as described so that it be harder to abuse power and enact laws that go against the constitution's goals.

> Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I will say, one thing I'm a bit confused about, and I think is a debate today, is the tenth amendment:

> Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I think this is a hotly debated one. In the case where federal government would want to restrict freedoms, it's pretty clear that it says they cannot act with power that isn't explicitly stated.

But what if a state wants to restrict freedom further?

I know this is a debate in legalizing Marijuana for example. Some people say it's not up to the federal government to make it legal or illegal. Then it would be up to each state. But making it illegal would seem to go against the constitution goals as signed by the states, that they should secure the people's liberties, and amendment IX which says that not enumerating such a right does not deny the people's right to it.

- https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri...
- https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc...
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/liberty
- https://www.theintelligencer.com/commentary/article/What-lib...