# The US Constitution DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 7, 2002, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129 "2002-12-07T13:41:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2002, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/61 "2002-12-08T20:33:44Z")
I’m so deeply sorry that this thread got hijacked into Libertopia – I’m interested in the _people_ who may or may not have rights that are or are not secured by a government. Whether or not they have property, and what claim some government may or may not have on that property, is to me secondary to their **selves** , their persons, and whether or not they are allowed to be free. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2002, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/62 "2002-12-08T22:15:45Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow_ > > **Blalron: you are confusing the metaphysical question of whether rights exist independent of man, and the question of whether protecting certain basic rights are A Good Thing ™. We protect fundamental rights not because they exist on some theological plane, but because societies that protect such rights are better than those that do not.** We protect certain basic rights not because it’s A Good Thing, but because failing to do so is a Very Bad Thing ™. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > \*\*Godwin, can you hear me? > > Listen you fucking ignoramus, stating that rights are not innate does not lead one to goose-step directly down your slippery slope.\*\* Yes it does, because once you have declared that everything that is your right is completely dependent upon what the government gives you, anything becomes possible. Yes invoking Godwin was harsh, but in this case neccesary to expose where your line of thinking ultimately ends. What rights belong to you are not soley dictated on what the government allows. That’s all I’m saying. > [@](#): > > You believe rights are innate? Fine. Which ones, and where is this documented? You must have some sort of instruction manual in hand to state: “you still deserve them by virtue of the fact that you are human.” > [@](#): > > Be a little thankful for the rights you have, because there are most certainly **not** universal, nor innate. They can evaporate if they aren’t protected, which is what your naïve, clumsy example actually shows. \*\* I didn’t claim that it was like the law of fucking gravity, did I? Yes these rights can be broken. But they shouldn’t be. It doesn’t have to actually be enforced to be something you are entitled to. It doesn’t have to exist on some lofty theological plane for it to be innate. We all (or at least the vast majority of us) have an instinct of self preservation, and we all want to avoid torture. None of us want to be killed or tortured by our government. We all want the means to change things if they are wrong (freedom of speech, assembly, petition). Ergo, it is an innate principle that murder and torture are wrong, and we can petition the government for a redress of grievances, Q.E.D. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/63 "2002-12-09T02:08:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*So a bunch of guys meeting in an ugly building on the East River are the divine arbiters of what is God-given? Do tell me how appointment to a UN ambassadorship gives one these shaman-like mystical powers. :rolleyes: \*\* Sorry, but your sarcasm is wasted. In order to be effectively sarcastic, you have to be making an actual point. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was posted in response to the question, > [@](#): > > \*\*Please inform us all where the uniform set of rights belonging to all humans is written; and for bonus credit, kindly inform us who authored them. \*\* So, you see, the UDHR is a perfectly correct answer – plus I get the bonus credit. > [@](#): > > **Better answer: the UNUDHR are an (arguably) valid expression of core human rights because a bunch of properly-delegated people thought about it and agreed it was so. NOT because they were ordained by God.** What’s this hang-up you’ve got about God? I never brought it up and for good reason. God is not necessary to formulate a coherent ethical system that includes the idea of innate human rights. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\*The entire concept of human rights directly depends on it. > > No, it does not. We can recognize a right to free speech as A Really Good Idea ™ without requiring that the right be ordained by God. \*\* Again with the God thing. This is starting to sound like a personal problem to me. In any event, you are 100% wrong if all rights are simply a matter of government policy, there is no such things as human rights. If human rights are granted by governments rather than being innate, you have no moral basis whatsoever for criticizing how another country treats its citizens. “In my country, we believe that blacks are inferior so we enslave them. The government has decided not to grant blacks the right to freedom.” “But you can’t do that! It’s wrong!” " “Oh really? Why?” “Because slavery is A Really Bad Idea.” “Why?” “Because, well, we think a society is better without slavery!” “We disagree, our country thinks slavery is A Really Good Idea. Now go away and mind your own business.” > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > In fact, the basic idea that some human rights are innate, while originally revolutionary in the extreme, is probably the most widely accepted philosophical idea on the planet today. > > Dare I say…cite? \*\* Well, let’s see. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed by representatives of 58 countries from pretty much every region of the globe begins, > [@](#): > > Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, How’s that? If you’re so inclined, you might wish to spot-check constitutions from various countries around that world. Most of them contain some reference to “human rights” or “inalienable rights.” For example. The Armenian constitution: > [@](#): > > \*\* The rights and freedoms set forth in the Constitution are not exhaustive and shall not be construed to exclude other universally accepted human and civil rights and freedoms. \*\* The Russian constitution: > [@](#): > > \*\*We, the multinational people of the Russian Federation, united by a common destiny on our land, asserting human rights and liberties, civil peace and accord, \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/64 "2002-12-09T04:05:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > **We protect certain basic rights not because it’s A Good Thing, but because failing to do so is a Very Bad Thing ™.** Tom-ay-to, Tom-ah-to. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/65 "2002-12-09T04:27:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Truth Seeker \* > **Sorry, but your sarcasm is wasted. In order to be effectively sarcastic, you have to be making an actual point. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was posted in response to the question, “Please inform us all where the uniform set of rights belonging to all humans is written; and for bonus credit, kindly inform us who authored them.” So, you see, the UDHR is a perfectly correct answer – plus I get the bonus credit.** Cute, but you know full well the poster was asking for a source of metaphysical authority, not some modern-day formulation by a bunch of diplomats. Plus, my word, are you really going to claim that all of these are innate human rights? Let’s look into a few of the choice tidbits from that UN document: > [@](#): > > Article 22. > Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. > > Article 24. > Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. > > Article 25. > (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Soooooo…not just as a matter of policy, but as a _fundamental, inalienable right_ I have the ability to require a country to provide me with social security, to force my employers to give me paid days off, to pay for my food, clothing, housing and medical care, and to comp me if I lose my job. Methinks you ought to rethink this UN thing as a solid enumeration of inalienable rights.\*\* > [@](#): > > What’s this hang-up you’ve got about God? I never brought it up and for good reason. God is not necessary to formulate a coherent ethical system that includes the idea of innate human rights.\*\* Call it God, call it nature, call it existence independent of human thought, whatever. I don’t really give a shit about the label you apply. The point is you’re appealing to the metaphysical for your authority.\*\* > [@](#): > > In any event, you are 100% wrong if all rights are simply a matter of government policy, there is no such things as human rights. If human rights are granted by governments rather than being innate, you have no moral basis whatsoever for criticizing how another country treats its citizens. \*\* The hell you can’t. I don’t have to appeal to the metaphysical to recognize that something violates my own sense of right and wrong, and I don’t need to make such an appeal to get others to agree with me. And if enough agree with me, we can force a change. \*\* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/66 "2002-12-09T07:45:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gex gex \* > \*\*You’re pretty much correct there, but it does grant one right. > > Which one? > > Read the second amendment. > > \*\* If you have a point to make, I’d suggest being more verbose. Or is this just a case of “well, I don’t like THAT right, so it must not be natural”? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/67 "2002-12-09T07:59:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*\>\> 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. > > This is a really dumb discussion which we have had several times before. Whether you have the rights and the lawas just recognise the fact or whether ythe laws do in fact create the rights. You know what? It’s irrelevant and you can think one way or the other and it won’t mean a thing. For all practical purposes, if something is written in the law then it is the law. No two people are going to agree exactly on what innate rights we have and the only thing which counts is what is spelled in writing. The rest is just mental masturbation\*\* Not true at all. If one believes that rights come from the arbitrary will of the government, then when that law is changed, and granted “rights” are removed, then there’s no reason to fight such restriction of rights. After all, if government is the source and arbiter of rights, whatever “rights” they decide to change or remove is up to their discretion. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Rieux](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Dr.Rieux](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Rieux)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/68 "2002-12-09T08:12:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*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.\*\* No matter how many times you make this argument, it still makes no more rational sense to me than (for instance) the divine right of kings. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/69 "2002-12-09T12:20:27Z")
Dr. Rieux wrote: > [@](#): > > No matter how many times you make this argument, it still makes no more rational sense to me than (for instance) the divine right of kings. What other rights or property would you have if you were not alive? I submit that life is your most fundamental right without which all others are moot. And I submit that your life does not come from the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![gex\_gex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@gex\_gex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gex_gex)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/70 "2002-12-09T13:04:01Z")
> [@](#): > > If you have a point to make, I’d suggest being more verbose. > > Or is this just a case of “well, I don’t like THAT right, so it must not be natural” Not at all true. The difference between this right and the other rights the US constitution guarantees are obvious. First of all, the other rights (freedom of speech, right to a fair trial etc) are all concerned with, essentially, one’s person. They’re saying, “no-one can stop your body saying x,” or “nobody can lock up your body unless you get a trial to make sure it’s fair.” The second amendment is different. It concerns itself with one’s right to own a particular piece of property, in this case, a firearm. It is a “right” dependent on technology, and it is very specific. The US government can restrict ownership of nearly anything else, but it cannot do so, (or to such an extent) for firearms. I don’t feel I’ve adequately explained mysefl however. I’ll think about it, and work out how to better give you my feelings on this. In the mean time, hopefully you can gain some insight from what I’ve said. Another way to look at it is to examine societies that have grossly abused human rights. Assuming the rights guaranteed in the US constitution to be human rights, we find Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, even contemporary China to be obvious offenders. However, continuing the assumption that the second amendment is a human right, we find Australia (and, while I don’t know the specific details, I suspect many European countries) to be an offender as well. Now, my country is not perfect, but it does have more respect for humanity than the horrific regimes mentioned above. The second amendment is all about what you can own. There are other ones that more properly guarantee what a person should be guaranteed as a human being. Do you see where I’m coming from? ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/71 "2002-12-09T13:52:57Z")
Am I correct in remembering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that the death penalty is a gross infringement of those rates? I think that’s the case. In which case the US itself infringes those “inalienable” rights. Not a good sign as to their inalienability, eh? pan ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/72 "2002-12-09T16:19:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > \*\*If one believes that rights come from the arbitrary will of the government, then when that law is changed, and granted “rights” are removed, then there’s no reason to fight such restriction of rights. \*\* I’m calling bullshit here. We fight for changes in the law all the time, even for things that everyone agrees aren’t fundamental rights. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/73 "2002-12-09T16:21:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gex gex \* > \*\*… but it does have more respect for humanity than the horrific regimes mentioned above. \*\* Australia? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/74 "2002-12-09T17:42:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*Plus, my word, are you really going to claim that all of these are innate human rights. \*\* We can quibble about which particular rights are really “human rights.” But that’s a qualitatively different discussion than whether such a thing as innate rights exists in the first place. > [@](#): > > **Call it God, call it nature, call it existence independent of human thought, whatever. I don’t really give a shit about the label you apply. The point is you’re appealing to the metaphysical for your authority.** You say that like it’s a bad thing. Or perhaps you’re using the word in a sort of loose angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin sense. There is a large, interesting and closely-reasoned literature on, to borrow a phrase, the “metaphysics of morals” – Rawls and Nozick are hardly new-age gurus. > [@](#): > > \*\*The hell you can’t. I don’t have to appeal to the metaphysical to recognize that something violates my own sense of right and wrong, and I don’t need to make such an appeal to get others to agree with me. And if enough agree with me, we can force a change. \*\* Everything is politics, eh? Quite the little Marxist, aren’t we, **Dewey**? Now we get down to it. The idea of innate human rights stands in direct opposition to the “might makes right” school of moral reasoning you espouse. Your “personal” sense of right and wrong is no more objectively valid than anyone else’s. Under your “philosophy,” you can never say that “X is bad” You can only say “I don’t like X.” You are essentially arguing that slavery is bad only because the South lost the American civil war or, Godwin bless us, that the holocaust was not intrinsically evil but merely bad social policy with which you personally disagree. Do you really believe that? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/75 "2002-12-09T18:25:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Truth Seeker \* > **We can quibble about which particular rights are really “human rights.” But that’s a qualitatively different discussion than whether such a thing as innate rights exists in the first place.** Well, no, it isn’t. The whole problem with a view of rights as innate is that under that view rights just exist, period, for no underlying logical reason. It makes the determination of “what is a right” a matter ultimately beyond the bounds of human reason.\*\* > [@](#): > > Everything is politics, eh? Quite the little Marxist, aren’t we, Dewey?\*\* Review my posting history, particulary in GD, and then come back here and call me a Marxist with a straight face. :rolleyes:\*\* > [@](#): > > Now we get down to it. The idea of innate human rights stands in direct opposition to the “might makes right” school of moral reasoning you espouse. Your “personal” sense of right and wrong is no more objectively valid than anyone else’s. Under your “philosophy,” you can never say that “X is bad” You can only say “I don’t like X.” You are essentially arguing that slavery is bad only because the South lost the American civil war or, Godwin bless us, that the holocaust was not intrinsically evil but merely bad social policy with which you personally disagree. Do you really believe that? \*\* The problems with the “rights are innate” view is that it substitues human reason for an appeal to some mystical external authority. The ultimate reason inevitably given for treating any right as “innate” is “because I said so.” ---
**Author:** ![Quintas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/48db29/32.png) [@Quintas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quintas)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/76 "2002-12-09T22:33:35Z")
In response to the OP. Amen, Amen and Amen. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/77 "2002-12-10T04:24:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gex gex \* > \*\*Not at all true. The difference between this right and the other rights the US constitution guarantees are obvious. > > First of all, the other rights (freedom of speech, right to a fair trial etc) are all concerned with, essentially, one’s person. They’re saying, “no-one can stop your body saying x,” or “nobody can lock up your body unless you get a trial to make sure it’s fair.” \*\* And this one says “The government can’t take away your tools of self defense.” > [@](#): > > \*\* > The second amendment is different. It concerns itself with one’s right to own a particular piece of property, in this case, a firearm. It is a “right” dependent on technology, and it is very specific. The US government can restrict ownership of nearly anything else, but it cannot do so, (or to such an extent) for firearms. \*\* Firearms are merely the most effective weapons for self defense. The intent is to protect that - self defense against criminals, invaders, or government. If we start using laser guns in the future, even though they aren’t “firearms”, they’d still be protected under the principles of the Second Amendment. It’s not a matter of protecting a specific technology. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I don’t feel I’ve adequately explained mysefl however. I’ll think about it, and work out how to better give you my feelings on this. In the mean time, hopefully you can gain some insight from what I’ve said. > > Another way to look at it is to examine societies that have grossly abused human rights. Assuming the rights guaranteed in the US constitution to be human rights, we find Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, even contemporary China to be obvious offenders. However, continuing the assumption that the second amendment is a human right, we find Australia (and, while I don’t know the specific details, I suspect many European countries) to be an offender as well. > > Now, my country is not perfect, but it does have more respect for humanity than the horrific regimes mentioned above. The second amendment is all about what you can own. There are other ones that more properly guarantee what a person should be guaranteed as a human being. > > Do you see where I’m coming from? \*\* The Second Amendment is more about the right to self defense than the specific protection of certain types of technology. I see where you’re coming from, but I think you’re looking at this in the wrong way. Had the Constitution been written without the invention of firearms, swords and spears would be protected. It’s a protection to keep a government from removing effective tools of self defense from the people - what those tools are isn’t the reason for it’s existance. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/78 "2002-12-10T04:27:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*I’m calling bullshit here. We fight for changes in the law all the time, even for things that everyone agrees aren’t fundamental rights. \*\* Ah, but a law against, say, speaking badly about the president, doesn’t infringe on your right to free speech. Because the government is the source of your rights, and if they decide that you no longer have such a right, you don’t anymore. It’s not merely being oppressed, but you simply don’t have it. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/79 "2002-12-10T15:24:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > \*\*Ah, but a law against, say, speaking badly about the president, doesn’t infringe on your right to free speech. Because the government is the source of your rights, and if they decide that you no longer have such a right, you don’t anymore. It’s not merely being oppressed, but you simply don’t have it. \*\* A law preventing me from speaking ill of the president would infringe on my free speech rights in this country because such a law runs afoul of the first amendment. Absent the first amendment (and similar provisions in state constitutions), it would not infringe on anything. It would, however, be A Really Bad Idea ™. Allowing open criticisms of government officials helps ensure that flaws in government policy will be exposed and corrected. This is why the first amendment is so critical to the American constitutional scheme. See? I can defend free speech rights without referring to some mythical thing existing out in the ether. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/80 "2002-12-10T19:10:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*The ultimate reason inevitably given for treating any right as “innate” is “because I said so.” \*\* It seems that you are unfamiliar with the literature in this area. > [@](#): > > \*\*It would, however, be A Really Bad Idea ™. Allowing open criticisms of government officials helps ensure that flaws in government policy will be exposed and corrected. \*\* But I completely disagree! Speaking badly about the president is a very harmful thing. It is disrespectful, unfairly undermines the people’s faith in goverment and is unproductive. In my country, attacking the intelligence of our Dear Leader is considered to be a very serious crime and is punishable by death. We also severely restrict many other forms of speech because we find them disruptive to societal harmony. For example, expressing any form of disrespect for the One True Religion is a slap in the face to all right-thinking folk and only someone maliciously bent on splitting society into rival factions would do such a thing. Consequently, in order to promote a harmonious and orderly society, our government has a law requiring every citizen adhere to and practice the state religion on pain of death. I know some of you in other countries have different views on these topics. However, the government here has sufficient backing to impose these rules on society so I guess it’s OK. > [@](#): > > \*\*Review my posting history, particulary in GD, and then come back here and call me a Marxist with a straight face. \*\* Well, you know **Dewey** , a lot of people only realize they’re Marxist later in life. Sometimes, they even register Republican and start businesses before they are forced to admit to themselves that the free market lifestyle just isn’t for them! Some people even try to lead a double life. During the week, they’ll act the role of, say, a corporate lawyer or CEO but on the weekends, they’ll lounge around in natural fibers reading _The New Republic_. I’ve heard of extreme cases where people with country club memberships have traveled to towns where nobody knows them in order to attend anti-globalization rallies! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129.md?page=5)