The enumerated rights are actually much broader than what the constitution merely says.
Exactly.
I'm no constitutional scholar like our illustrious President, but even I know that there were arguments both for, and against, enumerating our rights in a list, or "Bill of Rights".
Enumerate. As in stating
what already exists for posterity. If I remember correctly, many were against a bill of listed rights as a list could be interpreted as something finite; ONLY the things on this list are protected. Since folks were wise enough to realize that, at some point in the future, a right might be thought of that wasn't put on the list, it would be excluded from protection by the fact that a list was made at a point in time
before the right was able to be enumerated. Therefore, no "Bill of Rights", no finite list of things that could be construed to be the only rights protected.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe this is what led to the inclusion of an amendment process. A means to add to the list in order to mollify those against enumeration of a finite list. "TA-DA! We have included a process to add to the list in recognition that MORE FREEDOMS may be included that we haven't written down, yet."
Therefore, one can reason from this process that, just because something is written in law: One cannot be
compelled to testify against one's self, it doesn't mean that the respected right isn't broader, just that the broadness of it hasn't been enumerated.
However, this brings up a rather grey area: How can a nation founded on law distinguish what is enforceable and non-enforceable if people have rights that aren't
clearly and completely written down for posterity? After all, the law is concrete: Here is what is enforceable. Here is what is not. There has to be a point in which to distinguish it.
Haven't we always determined that law is interpreted by what is written? "The letter of the law"? Where else can you draw the line other than a finite list of enforceable/not enforceable? If it is on the list: it is law. If it is not on the list: Not law.
While I agree that a list of enumerated rights is not all inclusive, there has to be a point at which the enforcement of them has to take place.
Therefore, the question is: Even though you may, or may not have the right to not incriminate yourself
beyond compulsory testimony, at what point is this enforceable?
Isn't it reasonable to assume that incriminating information you
voluntarily disclose can be held against you (and, most likely WILL BE), and only that which is
coerced from you should be governed by rules restricting its use by the government?
This brings up an entirely new can of worms: If you have the right not to incriminate yourself, why is there a need by the government to
finagle it out of you in the first place? Why suspect someone, fish for evidence, and then, after securing "probable cause" read them their rights......only to immediately try to hornswaggle the accused into slipping up and provide incriminating evidence
after being read his rights?
More succinctly: If you have the right to remain silent in order to not incriminate yourself, wouldn't this right be more accurately enumerated by stating:
"You have the right to not have anything you say held against you."? Wouldn't this statement more accurately define your right? It would eliminate the entire questionable and idiotic process of excluding incriminating statements made
before the point at which you are simply
reminded that you have a right that exists....but only a right that exists
after you have been reminded of it, and can now voluntarily discard.
After all, if authorities have probable cause to make an arrest, why do they require you to play a game in which they need to trick you into forfeiting a right in order to gain more evidence? They
already have enough evidence to convict, right? No? Then why did they make the arrest?
Simply rephrasing your "right to remain silent" into a "right to not incriminate yourself" would solve this Miranda game playing entirely.