A question and why I avoid using terms like...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

...1st, 2nd, 4th, etc. Amendment Rights:

- Certain parties will infer that those rights derive from the named clause. I characterize such inferences as Bullshit. The Bill of Rights, in the 9th Amendment, explains that references to certain rights in the Constitution "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights)". The BoR makes it unarguably clear that rights exist outside, apart from and without the benefit of the Constitution.

- Often, cases in court are brought that seek to define a right by the wording of a certain Amendment and by examining the scope the named protections.

- Rights are attributes of the people, they are exercised by individuals acting alone or in groups and principally require respect from others acting alone or in groups (such as governments and agencies thereof).

- Emphasis mine:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz."

Regarding the freedom of speech: I suggest that the breadth and bounds of the right protected cannot be inferred and are not implied by the 1st Amendment. The various courts have ruled that laws known as "prior restraint" are unconstitutional.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prior_restraint

Should other rights have analogous protections as well?

[merrily]

1. I do not understand the benefit of a right that one cannot enforce.

Jefferson, who owned slaves, including his own children, wrote of "certain inalienable rights," inalienable meaning something you cannot sell or give away, even if you wish to do so and something that cannot be taken from you. Something that is inalienable is something that is non-transferable, period. If slavery does not negate the concept of inalienability, I don't know what would.


ETA: I agree that all humans should have certain rights, using morals and ethics as my standard. I do not agree that all humans indeed do have all the rights they should have. What does a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness mean, really, if you can be murdered or enslaved or even killed accidentally or by a force of nature?

I guess I think the time debating what natural rights are and what they should be would be better spent getting enforceable laws passed.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Rights, IMHO, should be used in the formulation of laws and...

...laws should reflect and protect the rights of the people. Was slavery wrong? Of course it was/is. Does Jefferson's apparent inability to recognize the fundamental contradiction is his actions negate the truth of that? Of course it doesn't.

Recognizing the existence of "certain inalienable rights" and that they are innate in all of the people does not qualify you to also recognize and adequately define who is "one of the people". Clearly, many were denied various rights based upon physical attributes. African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, females of all nationalities and races have all been victims of a systematic failure in recognition of and respect for some of their rights.

[merrily]

3. Using what rights one thinks people should have to pass laws is about what I said, isn't it?

You may not have seen that as it was an edit.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. Thanks for highlighting the edit

[merrily]

5. LOL, the highlight was an edit, too!

In general, I tend to hit post and update much faster than I should.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. Yes :)

I noticed. I promise to be more... complete in my future reading.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. IMHO, we differ on the sense of "have"

You wrote: "I do not agree that all humans indeed do have all the rights they should have." I suggest that the existence of a right and it being innate to each and every person is fundamental to how I view 'what is a person'. I believe that a person cannot be separated from their rights. I see all the time that either by other individuals, groups or governments that those rights are not respected.

I don't see that those rights are gone. In general, it is a basic duty of government to protect all of the rights of all of the people.

IMHO, getting "enforceable laws passed" without a clear understanding of the rights they must protect, would be like trying to win a football game where all the players are on the same team. One cannot discern an ally from an opponent.

[merrily]

8. I am somewhat content to come out in the same place, regardless of how each of us gets there.