The very question presupposes that the Constitution was and is intended to lay the foundations of the governments right to restrict the freedom of the people.
A proper understanding of the role and purpose of the Constitution negates the question, it does not need to be answered.
The COTUS is intended to limit the governments control of the people. When the contents are viewed from that perspective, it is clear that the very question is invalid. No question, from a constitutional vantage point, can begin with "How does this restrict the peoples' right to..." because that very concept undermines the intent of the document.
Article the twelfth [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.
There's your answer. A proper understanding of the intended role of the COTUS eliminates a large majority of modern constitutional arguments.
The question MUST BE "How is and was this provision intended to limit the power of the government to restrict the people?" Any other interpretation presupposes that the people exist for benefit of government.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.