It's based on arguments as well. Just because something goes to the Supreme Court and they rule that it's not constitutionally protected, doesn't mean that is indeed the case. It means the argument was weak/invalid. Just because they overturned Roe doesn't mean that abortion as a right isn't protected by the constitution, it means the argument from Roe does not prove it to be constitutionally protected. You can make another argument. Or, you know, just make a law. And yes, the way people look at and interpret things changes over time as well.
If the law doesn't actually stop anyone from banning it, then you cannot say it's "protected". If you or I can make a perfectly rationally solid
argument for something to be protected by the Constitution, but the Courts haven't said so and states/orgs can ban all they want, then where's the protection? I literally could not exercise the right.
Look at it like a game for example. People discover a new technique or strategy in a game all the time, and a lot of times the developers didn't even intend it. It's something that was always in the game but people discovered it.
Riiiight, but in that analogy, if someone just discovered it before, they could have done it with the same tools. A better analogy would be the developers introducing a patch, mechanically changing what people could do.
Let's say there was an item, the
description of which said it provided a 20% buff to all classes. Except.... it didn't actually work on Rangers. Then 250 years later, the devs patch it so the item now properly functions with all classes. And you try to convince me that the item
always worked on all professions, because it's right there in the description!