I suppose the easiest way to picture Reserved Rights is to review the Indian/Federal Government Treaties, fishing rights come immediately to mind. The Indians ok we will occupy this area, but you have to agree to our fishing rights over the whole territory. Hence we see all others buying fishing licenses and spin casting subject to a 2 or 3 catch limit, and the Indians with nets filling 50 gallon drums with fish side by side. The Indians are exersizing whats called reserved rights. Another example is if you the reader creates a contract with koko that you can walk your dog on kokos grass, no other conditions expressed, then I believe we are all in agreement that there are no constraints, like the indian treaties, you can freely walk your dog over kokos grass anytime you wish and there is nothing koko can do to change that without your express agreement, and amending the contract. We can all agree on that correct? Its basic contract law 001. So you would not allow koko to narrowly interpret the contract so you can only walk your dog when the sun is shining? or during the day? after 12pm? Between 9am and 2pm? Sundays? Nope you would haul koko into court so quick and have a judge order koko to uphold the contract or he held in contempt of court wouldnt you, because no matter how narrow koko wants to slice it, it is a breach of contract. We all agree correct? Which takes us to the constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. so....we have the government on one side of the table and the people on the other. The government wants to rule over you and grant privileges based upon public (in this case legislative) review, since in america we only vote on who is going to be our new trustees to the contract not on the substance within the contract, and presumably as the story goes (though not true in real life) like atrtorneys the presumption is they speak on our behalf. (Using their crystal balls since referendums to vote for the laws we are expected to live under are rarely if ever circulated) Hence the government and the people entered into a contract with each other, that is called a constitution. The people rejected the constitution until the Bill of Rights was proposed, once the BoR was satisfactory the constitution had enough support and was then ratified based upon the inclusion of the BoR, (10 amendments) hence contingingent upon the incorporation of said Rights Reserved (the stay off the grass absolutely 'NO TRESPASSING' zone that the government agreed to honor) vis-a-vis the terms and conditions of the contract with the rights of the people set apart from government interference hence allowed for the creation and ratification of the constitution which otherwise today would not exist. Simple contract law 101. Here is the issue: The government agreed that we the people have reserved the right to: Free Speech, 'Exercise' their religion. (Not just pray) Arms. (Not just muskets) Trial by Jury adjudication. (Not Judge) Privacy, (Modern Euphemism for 'effects') Free Press Etc Like walking the dog on the grass there is no provisio for any legislation or court to narrowly interpret anything what so ever, or shift its meaning and/or intent outside of the unequivocal terms stated. No provisio has been given either the government, or their courts, or legislators to create or take any regulatory action what so ever with regard to speech, religion, arms, jury trial etc. These rights belong to each individual as part of their 'self' governance, not 'legally' subject to public purview, caveat causing damage or injury. However that is not the case in america. The government dictates our religion, regulates speech, regulates arms, gives us trial by summary judgment circumventing a jury entirely, so the million dollar question is who usurped the rights of the people?