The US Constitution DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS.

The BBQ Pit
1

I am so sick of hearing people say “Well, the Constitution gives us the right to…” or “You can’t do that because there’s no right to [whatever] granted by the Constitution.”

The idea that the Constitution, and hence the State, grants rights to it’s subjects is completely contrary to it’s language and intended purpose. Someone seemingly has convinced everyone that they’re subjects to the US Federal Government and must beg for rights to be granted to them.

People have inalienable, innate rights. The Founders recognized this, and the Bill of Rights is written STRICTLY AS A RESTRICTION OF WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN DO. It does NOT grant any rights. It recognizes that rights exist, and specifically forbids the Federal (and State through the 14th amendment) government from doing anything to violate or abridge that right.

I’ve seen people argue in support of the war on drugs by saying “there’s no right to smoke drugs in the Constitution”, and that sort of logic. Is that what we’ve become? A society that will try to screw over everyone any way that want so long it doesn’t violate the rights “granted” in the Constitution?

It’s sad that people seem to think rights come from the State, and hence can be restricted or taken away by the State, and that anything not specifically enumerated for protection in the Bill of Rights obviously isn’t a “right”.

We don’t stand much of a chance at freedom if this is the common belief among even the more educated people of the SDMB, let alone society at large.

Note to mods: This is sort of GDish, but it was intended as a rant. I read, yet again, someone talking about how the Constitution grants this and didn’t grant that, and decided to bitch about it.

If you decide it’s GD material, lock this thread and I’ll rewrite this stuff in a more GD-friendly way. As it is, I’m just ranting at the fact that the idea that we’re granted rights is so widespread. It really pisses me off.

2

The Constitution does not grant rights. It guarantees them.

I agree completely.

3

Well, I think when people say that, they mean, “The Constitution doesn’t recognize that the right to smoke drugs exist”. From what I know of the writers of the Constitution, they seemed to believe, first, that there were certain natural rights, and second, that these rights weren’t all-encompassing; that it was legitimate for the government to regulate or ban certain activity.

As to whether the founders would believe that smoking pot or crack is a right, I can’t really say. The government at the time did tax alcohol and put restrictions on alcohol production, I know.

4

I’d drop the Supreme Court a note to fill them in on your theory. I’m sure they’ll give it all due consideration.

5

Was this meant to imply that what I said was obvious, or that what I said was an outlandish view not generally held among the Supreme Court?

Sorry, my sarcasm reading device is broken today.

6

Hamlet wrote:

About as much as any other tyrants.

7

It does so!

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. :smiley:

8

And, I’ll give this post all due consideration:
:rolleyes:

9

There can be no rights without a corresponding remedy.

I can bleat all day about how I have the right to free speech, how it’s God-given and a natural right and is sacrosanct in some metaphysical way, but without a mechanism to insure I can utilize free speech without penalty all that bleating is meaningless. Absent the enforceability of the first amendment, the concept of a “right to free speech” is just empty political rhetoric, with as much meaning as “I feel your pain” or “a thousand points of light.”

I mean really, think about it. I can rant on about how I have a God-given, sacrosanct, natural right to run around buck naked in the town square all I want. That doesn’t make that right exist, certainly not in any objective fashion. How do you determine what are “natural” or “God-given” rights and what are just the desires of a person overly obsessed with walking around naked?

10

You are confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, an important distinction since laws cannot be struck down for violating the Declaration.

11

They only posited this. “Inalienable, innate rights” don’t grow on trees. They’re a human concept, and a pretty arbitrary one, as much in its very existence as in its content.

12

Even if one finds fault in the idea of natural rights, it’d be hard to deny that those who wrote the Constitution had anything but that in mind. The Constitution is still written to protect rights that were assumed to be innate - whether you find the idea flawed or not doesn’t change how the Constitution works.

13

I see. So the founders recognized that unique, universal set of rights all people have and set about protecting them.

This must be the same set of rights shared by the Chinese laborers in the PRC, the semi-nomadic Himba of Namimbia, and the Taoist Yao of Thailand. nods

Oh, wait, you mean that not all those people have the right the bear arms, or free speech? What’s up with that? Could it be that the founders did indeed decide upon a set of rights and protect them for us? Unless by inalienable you mean American and by innate you mean between about 1800 to present your theory needs work.

14

I did know that. I was just making a lame joke. :o

15

Nope, probably my bad attempt at a flippant reply to a heartfelt rant.

Your rant included different arguments/theories, some true, some patently false, and others of little consequence, that were all emeshed together in a somewhat difficult to follow manner.

If you are interested in a debate, I would suggest you first do these things:

  1. Define what you mean each time you use the term “right.”

  2. Outline the difference between granting and guaranteeing rights

  3. Explain the intricate nature of how “rights” can conflict with laws.

  4. Explain how much, if any, power the government has to limit the exercise of rights. It seems you are advocating that they have no power to, which would be quite wrong.

  5. Emperically show how we, in America, don’t “stand much chance at freedom,”

That’d be a start of the debate. But hey, it is a rant, so to each their own.

16

The Constitution functions well regardless of whether Madison, et al, thought that rights were ordained by God or just a Really Good Idea ™. Madison’s personal opinion on that metaphysical question is wholly irrelevant to the Constitutional review process.

And really, why should Madison and company’s views on what rights are “innate” be dispositive? Does Madison have a telephone to God such that he can determine what rights God has granted and which he hasn’t? I say running around naked is an innate right, and all laws which limit my right to trot about starkers are a deprivation of the most serious kind. Why am I any less qualified than Madison to determine what God has ordained?

Without a method of insuring I can run around clothing-free without penalty I can in no meaningful way say I have a right to public nudity. And without the first amendment, I can in no meaningful way say I have the right to free speech. Absent the remedy, the so-called “right” is just an unfulfilled desire.

17

Maybe he meant the Luriekistan Declaration.

18

I think ivylass (for whom I’m developing immense respect) hit it in one: Rights are not given by the Constitution; they are guaranteed by it.

Quite simply, you have the right to do whatever you want to do whenever and wherever you want to do it – until someone bigger, meaner, and/or with the power to do so stops you.

Certain rights within that extremely broad statement are guaranteed to the extent that the U.S. Government may not stop you from exercising them, by virtue of various clauses, generally found in amendments, since it was the intent of the F.F. to establish a fairly strong national government of broad but limited powers, and hence only a few guarantees (e.g., the right not to be tried for an action legal at the time you did it but later made illegal retroactively) were incorporated into the original document. The Fourteenth Amendment protects your rights as U.S. citizens from tampering by state government – to the extent that the federal court defines such rights as “fundamental.” E.g., you do not have a flat right under the U.S. constitution to be tried by a jury for a state criminal offense in state courts or as a party to a lawsuit in state civil court – but a “significant” criminal offense does carry that guarantee; I believe the criterion is whether the offense is punishable by a sentence of more than six months, though I may be wrong about that.

It’s worth noting a fact that seldom gets picked up in these constitutional-rights debates – most (all?) state constitutions include guarantees of rights which may be more broadly written than the federal one. For example, under the constitution of the State of Georgia, there exists a right to privacy that protects gay people from being prosecuted for private sexual acts, despite the refusal of SCOTUS in Bowers v. Hardwick to find such a guarantee in the U.S. Constitution. And the Supreme Court of Georgia, with the final word on what the Georgia State Constitution says, interpreted the constitutional provision for a right to privacy as covering that situation, and hence nullified the state sodomy law as violative of it.

The point to all this is that whether or not one cares to defend the proposition that one has “inalienable” rights, he who has the power to restrain you from exercising those rights can certainly remove them from you. As a government existing by the consent of the governed, the U.S. and its constituent states have declared that it is powerless to remove those rights by governmental fiat. As regards your freedom of speech, you are privileged under the U.S. and state constitutions to be a jerk, provided that you do not commit crimes or torts against others while doing so. The Chicago Reader, though, not being a governmental entity, retains the power to restrict you from being a jerk on their property, i.e., this board (and presumably their newspaper as well).

19

Once again, I just have to sit back and contemplate the job well done by both Hamlet and Dewey. Good job, guys, and thanks for saving me the trouble!

20

I’ll give it a go:

I define it as authority accrued to ownership of property. “Rights” and “property” may be effectively used as synonyms since “rights” is shorthand for “authority accrued to ownership of property”.

Granting rights describes either the creation or the transfer of property ownership. Guaranteeing rights describes the use of force (either densive or retaliatory, but not initial) to protect property.

Actually, I think Jefferson did a reasonably good job of explaining that, so I’ll just quote him — “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” (to Francis Gilmer in 1816)

Legitimate authority over rights (or property) is derived solely from free and willful consent of those who own them.

I define freedom as the absence of coercion; thus, I think the assertion that we don’t stand much chance at freedom is self-evident.