After the Codification, that took place in France more than 200 years ago, the French

Exegesis School was raised. It main idea was to be faithfull to the text itself, leaving
behind everything that wasn't on it. Others scholars held the idea of the extreme
positivism, that led everything that wasn't in the text aside.
But there are a lot of examples that show that one cannot simply take the text of a
statute, or in this case the Constitution, as the only source of Law and rigths.
Custom is a source of Law. Doctrine is also, even thought it has more or less
importance in the different systems (Common Law or Statute Law). 
There is another important topic that cannot be led behind in terms of rights, and it is
the “unenumerated rights”, which are in the IX amendment.
First of all, and to start, there are different kinds of Custom. There is the:
1. Praeter Legem: When there is no actual legislation, or there are legal loopholes,
and the custom arises.
2. Secundum Legem: When there is legislation, and the custom helps in the
interpretation.
3. Contra Legem: When the custom goes against the legislation.

This terms are all legal terms, which help to understand the importance of the custom in
different areas, but just like the US Constitution was thought to the normal people to
understand it, the custom is so important that people do not need to know this latin
terms to see it has a special role in the legal system.
Unlike for example Jeremy Bentham, who considered the idea of a “perfect” Code
which contained every possible legal solution, the reality shows that Law is alive, so it
cannot be on paper integrally and forever. It is different in time and places, and what is
not even a possibility in a time, is a Human Right in other.
That is why is so important to look away from the text of the Constitution. Because one
cannot simply think that everything can be in the text. Specially on the Constitutions,
that are generally made to last on time, so they are written on general terms, therefore
they need to be interpret, and to do that one need to do at least two things: a) To
understand it as a whole system, and b) To see the reality, the living constitution.
These two can be called “systematic interpretation” and “dynamic interpretation”1.
There is another important topic regarding the unwritten constitution, which is the
“unenumerated rights”. Once again, there is no chance that a text can have all the
possibilities the world and the life can provide. So you can, as I already say, interpret
the text and extract from it other rights that are consequences of others that are literally
on the Constitution (for example, if the Constitution establish the freedom of speech,
you can sing a song, even though the text does not literally says that one have the right
to sing a song), or you can take the IX amendment, which reads: “The enumeration in
the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people” and see that there are others rights that does not need to be
linked to the text, but arise from the human nature, for example, the right to live.

1
SAGÜES, Néstor, Manual de Derecho Constitucional, Ed. Astrea, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, 2007.
In conclusion, the law is a living nature. It cannot be jailed into texts only. It is
important to have them, they provide security and organization, but there is much more
than that.