# 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:** 5
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/81 "2002-12-10T19:36:17Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Truth Seeker \* > \*\*\*\* It seems that you are unfamiliar with the literature in this area._\* Care to make an argument rather than an appeal to authority?\*\* > [@](#): > > 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. > > [Etc, etc and so on and so forth]\*\* Then your country will fall further and further behind until they are a shell of what they once were. That, or your people will get sick of the rules imposed on them and fight to change them, with physical violence if necessary. Heck, perhaps my country will even help them out. Americans have their rights not because they exist floating about in the ether but because a group of men _wanted_ them and were willing to fight for them. Look, I understand the allure of talking about natural rights. I sometimes do it myself; it can be a convenient political shorthand for “things we agree are basic and fundamental and need not be questioned anymore.” But as a matter of objective reality, they don’t exist apart from man’s desire for freedom, his ability to reason, and his willingness to fight. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/82 "2002-12-11T01:43:53Z")
> [@](#): > > It makes the determination of “what is a right” a matter ultimately beyond the bounds of human reason. I suppose that the Declaration of Independence pisses Dewey off to no end. It claims that we are endowed by our Creator (oh the horror!) of certain Unalienable rights! “FUCKING IDIOTS, WE CAN TAKE THEIR RIGHTS AWAY FOR ANY REASON WE WANT TO! How DARE they suggest that there are certain freedoms we have no right to take away!” Shit, I’m channeling Dewey. Now back to your scheduled programming… Human reason can explain the reasons behind fundamental rights. We have explained them. Even if no divine mandate exists, it is better to operate under the assumption that we do have Unalienable rights. Suffice it to say there are certain acts that no government has the right to do, and you would be very hard pressed to explain why any government would have a moral right to engage in them. To elaborate I would have to go into Godwin territory, which I don’t wish to do. Call it God, call it the Tooth Fairy, call it the consensus of the vast majority of the civilized world. Whatever the fuck you want to call it. They don’t have the moral right. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/83 "2002-12-11T02:46:50Z")
Hmmm… actually, I think I see the point made later in the thread – and it’s not that what is a “right” is “up to the government”. The way I read it, it is that “human rights” do not exist (meaningfully) independently of _humans_ themselves and of evolving human societies (does the right to dissent from the government mean anything if there is no government to dissent _from_?) Now, however, human _reason_ **may** be applied to the issue and through whatever school of logic or debate is adopted _conclude_ – rightly or wrongly – that X, Y, or Z are rights of _universal_ application… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/84 "2002-12-11T03:57:35Z")
The 10th Ammendment is very seldom referenced, but it sheds a lot of light on this topic, and reinforces some of what has been said on this thread: “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.” The government’s actions are limited to those things which are PERMITTED by the people. (Whereas, the people are allowed to do anything which is not expressly forbidden by law.) And let’s not forget the 9th Ammendment, either: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” When you have some time, visit this site and read the whole constitution: [http://www.midnightbeach.com/jon/US-Constitution.htm](http://www.midnightbeach.com/jon/US-Constitution.htm) ---
**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 11, 2002, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/85 "2002-12-11T04:48:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*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. \*\* Let me clarify: Let’s say the first amendment is wholly repealed and laws against speaking about the president are outlawed. By your logic, as the government grants all rights, there IS NO LONGER ANY RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. AT ALL. It’s not being suppressed. It simply doesn’t exist. Before, it existed because the Constitution declared it to exist, and since that changed, it no longer exists. Nothing permanent or inalienable about it. You can argue that the right to free speech is helpful to a society, but so what? They’re not a right. The government, as the source and arbiter of rights, can grant and remove them at will. Your rights aren’t being violated or oppressed. They simply don’t exist anymore. One does not necesarily need to appeal to a higher authority to believe that rights are a function of the existance of man. Even as a pragmatic belief, the idea that rights exist and can be suppressed is entirely more practical to a freedom seeking society than a belief that rights are granted by the state, and can be given and removed as arbitrarily as the state wants. ---
**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 11, 2002, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/86 "2002-12-11T05:43:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > **I suppose that the Declaration of Independence pisses Dewey off to no end. It claims that we are endowed by our Creator (oh the horror!) of certain Unalienable rights!** The Declaration is a nice statement of principles wrapped up on political rhetoric. While the bit about “inalienable rights” has a nice ring to it, the mere fact that it is in the Declaration does not by that fact make it so. Furthermore, see my comments above about the use of inherency as a convenient shorthand in political discourse.\*\* > [@](#): > > “FUCKING IDIOTS, WE CAN TAKE THEIR RIGHTS AWAY FOR ANY REASON WE WANT TO! How DARE they suggest that there are certain freedoms we have no right to take away!” > > Shit, I’m channeling Dewey.\*\* Kindly point out where I’ve engaged in anything remotely approaching this kind of overheated rhetoric. Otherwise, get bent. I am a staunch proponent of protecting fundamental human freedoms from the reach of government. I don’t need to reach for silly notions of inherency to do so.\*\* > [@](#): > > Human reason can explain the reasons behind fundamental rights. We have explained them. Even if no divine mandate exists, it is better to operate under the assumption that we do have Unalienable rights. \*\* If you want to operate under the fiction of inalienability – if you really think that’s necessary to protect human freedom – then fine. Whatever makes you feel good, I suppose. But a cold-eyed view of the real world shows it ain’t so. And furthermore, it ain’t necessary.\*\* > [@](#): > > Suffice it to say there are certain acts that no government has the right to do, and you would be very hard pressed to explain why any government would have a moral right to engage in them. \*\* One need not engage in the fiction of inherent rights to exercise moral judgment.\*\* > [@](#): > > To elaborate I would have to go into Godwin territory, which I don’t wish to do. Call it God, call it the Tooth Fairy, call it the consensus of the vast majority of the civilized world. Whatever the fuck you want to call it. They don’t have the moral right. \*\* The consensus of the civilized world, unlike mystical notions of God or Nature or inherency, is a tangible thing. Indeed, it is only this consensus and mankind’s willing to fight to preserve the judgment of that consensus that gives us any rights at all. This is not so shallow a source as I suspect you’d consider it. Mankind has a base and insatiable desire to be free. Given the tools, he will fight for that freedom. The history of the past half-century has been nothing if not the history of the oppressed throwing off their chains – from Polish Solidarity to the fall of the Berlin Wall to the collapse of communism. _They_ didn’t need mystical claims of inherency to find their freedom – they just knew it was something they wanted, and were willing to fight for it. ---
**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 11, 2002, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/87 "2002-12-11T05:52:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > **Let me clarify: Let’s say the first amendment is wholly repealed and laws against speaking about the president are outlawed. By your logic, as the government grants all rights, there IS NO LONGER ANY RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. AT ALL. It’s not being suppressed. It simply doesn’t exist. Before, it existed because the Constitution declared it to exist, and since that changed, it no longer exists. Nothing permanent or inalienable about it.** I think this is exactly what I said above. See the paragraph beginning “Absent the first amendment…”\*\* > [@](#): > > You can argue that the right to free speech is helpful to a society, but so what? They’re not a right. The government, as the source and arbiter of rights, can grant and remove them at will. Your rights aren’t being violated or oppressed. They simply don’t exist anymore.\*\* The government cannot grant or remove them at will, lest it end up with a harbor full of tea.\*\* > [@](#): > > One does not necesarily need to appeal to a higher authority to believe that rights are a function of the existance of man. Even as a pragmatic belief, the idea that rights exist and can be suppressed is entirely more practical to a freedom seeking society than a belief that rights are granted by the state, and can be given and removed as arbitrarily as the state wants. \*\* Rights are not granted by the state, they are seized by the people. And a people unwilling to fight for their rights is a people unworthy of having them. ---
**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 11, 2002, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/88 "2002-12-11T05:55:09Z")
**John Mace** : The provisions you refer to only make clear that the Constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights worthy of protection. It recognizes there are other sources of rights – such as state constitutions, statutes at all levels of government and, indeed, rights taken forcibly by the people without legal codification. ---
**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 11, 2002, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/89 "2002-12-11T05:56:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JRDelirious \* > \*\*Hmmm… actually, I think I see the point made later in the thread – and it’s not that what is a “right” is “up to the government”. The way I read it, it is that “human rights” do not exist (meaningfully) independently of _humans_ themselves and of evolving human societies (does the right to dissent from the government mean anything if there is no government to dissent _from_?) Now, however, human _reason_ **may** be applied to the issue and through whatever school of logic or debate is adopted _conclude_ – rightly or wrongly – that X, Y, or Z are rights of _universal_ application… \*\* Yes, this is my point exactly. Thank you for the good, concise language. ---
**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 11, 2002, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/90 "2002-12-11T10:38:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*I think this is exactly what I said above. See the paragraph beginning “Absent the first amendment…”\*\*The government cannot grant or remove them at will, lest it end up with a harbor full of tea.\*\*Rights are not granted by the state, they are seized by the people. And a people unwilling to fight for their rights is a people unworthy of having them. \*\* We may be on the same page - just hung up on the idea of “mystical” sources for 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 11, 2002, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/91 "2002-12-11T15:23:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > \*\*We may be on the same page - just hung up on the idea of “mystical” sources for rights. \*\* I’m not so sure. Let us consider the fictional land of Apathinia. Apathinia has no Constitution or other legal mechanism to protect fundamental rights. But the people of Apathinia don’t care – they aren’t bothered by this fact, and are downright unwilling to do much of anything, much less fight, to attain those rights. I suspect you would say that the citizens of Apathinia nonetheless have preexisting rights anyway, merely by virtue of their existence. I would say they don’t. Rights don’t exist absent a corresponding remedy, whether that is a remedy at law or the remedy of people fighting to give themselves rights. ---
**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 11, 2002, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/92 "2002-12-11T23:53:50Z")
Fair enough - we do disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/93 "2002-12-12T00:12:05Z")
As for me, give me Liberty, or give me death! OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS, MR. DEWEY! ---
**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 12, 2002, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/94 "2002-12-12T02:30:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*As for me, give me Liberty, or give me death! OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS, MR. DEWEY! \*\* Soooooo…do you have a coherent point to make? ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/95 "2002-12-12T03:53:53Z")
Truthseeker, can you really submit the written opinion of a bunch of self appointed experts as proof that humans have innate writes with a straight face? Dewey pretty much took you to task already, so I won’t belabor the point, but this document holds about as much weight for our purposes here as my back of the envelope declaration that I have the innate right to get a blowjob from my hairdresser. Give the founding fathers credit where credit is due. The rights that you are taking to be innate and universal are their idea. Are they a good idea? You bet. Are they innate and universal? Of coarse not. Grow up, and don’t assume that anything you happen to find that appears in written text is a valid cite. ---
**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 12, 2002, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/96 "2002-12-12T05:57:34Z")
It’s possible that he personally believes that there are innate and universal rights - and that he’s in agreement with said document - rather than assuming the document is “proof” of objective, universal rights. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/97 "2002-12-12T06:46:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Soooooo…do you have a coherent point to make? You define “rights” as being “rights” only so long as any particular government recognizes it as such. I define “rights” as something that humans deserve to have, regardless of the political regime they are under. Therefore, I can’t prove that anything is a “right” under your definition, since all the rights I have talked about, such as freedom from torture and genocide, have all been violated at some point or another. Therefore they don’t exist as rights in DeweyLand. It is impossible to argue with you, because you are working under an entirely different semantic framework. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/98 "2002-12-12T11:40:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > \*\*It’s possible that he personally believes that there are innate and universal rights - and that he’s in agreement with said document - rather than assuming the document is “proof” of objective, universal rights. \*\* I pretty clearly asked for proof. I asked for the book, tablet, scroll, instruction manual, or whatnot that lays down our innate, inalienable rights. Any group of people can jot down rights they would like to see all people have, and the could probably go on to get substantial agreement, but how does this satisfy the _innate and inalienable_ qualifier? We would need a source of these rights that wasn’t clearly the subjective opinion one or more people. I find it laughable that people are so myopic as to miss the fact that billions of people over thousands of years have lived and died with sets of rights quite different from _those_ the US founding fathers set down. Even those rights don’t enjoy complete acceptance in the west. Several democratic nations get along quite well without a right to bear arms, or right to withhold the truth in order to avoid incriminating oneself. And hell, what about my cat? We are both just warm blooded mammals, after all. Where and what are her rights? In other words why would man, the thinking animal, be in possession of some innate gift that other animals are not?. Is it encoded in our genes? Can I dissect my neighbor and find his innate rights next to his spleen? I don’t understand what is so odious about admitting the fact that rights are of our own construction. I don’t find emotional pleas that the world is more comforting if our rights are granted by some higher power compelling. In fact, I find them silly. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/99 "2002-12-12T12:49:11Z")
Well. It’s an interesting sidetrack this thread has taken, about the exact nature of “Libertopia” and deep philosophical debates about the nature of “rights” and how many maked people in public can dance on the head of a pin. But I do believe the simple point the OP was trying to make, one with which I wholeheartedly agree, is that regardless of whether or not any “rights” _actually, literally **are** _ inalienable, or endowed by God, or just socially constructed, or granted by our Martian Overlords, or whatever, the operative _assumption_ in the Constitution of the United States is that certain rights are in fact inalienable, and endowed by our creator, and that further, it is a document the purpose of which is to be a means by which the people grant certain limited powers to a government, and not the other way around. Is there anyone who honestly disagrees with this? In any case, **SenorBeef** , your rant is my rant. Squared and cubed and with hot fudge sauce on top. ---
**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 12, 2002, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129/100 "2002-12-12T12:50:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*You define “rights” as being “rights” only so long as any particular government recognizes it as such. \*\* You aren’t paying attention. I said that protection by law was ONE WAY that rights are created. I also specified another way. Re-read my most recent posts and see if you can’t figure it out. And **Waverly** , your last post was spot-on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-does-not-grant-any-rights/141129.md?page=6)