The Constitution: Positive and Negative rights

[Nate K]

I'm not a Constitutional scholar but from what I've read, the Constitution doesn't grant us rights, but the people grant the government it's power.

I'm discussing it with someone and here is their response that confuses me..


From the bill of RIGHTS here are the times that the word right is mentioned:

"right of the people peaceably to assemble"
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons"
"the right to a speedy and public trial"
"the right of trial by jury shall be preserved"

Those are just the ones that actually use the term.


You are trying to say that the Bill of Rights doesn't grant the people rights, it merely tells the government that its not allowed to take those rights away. Now, you sound like maybe you might have a point, but you do not.

In a state of nature, completely devoid of government or any kind of state, everything is a right. You can kill a man, smoke week, speed in your car, build a house, etc. By establishing government you surrender some of these rights to the state in exchange for certain protections and services. For example you give up the right to drive as quickly as you want and the government sets up traffic laws and a police force to enforce them so that the roads are safe. When a right is surrendered to the state we are granting the state certain powers, such as the ability to pull over speeders. Most of what we argue over about government is where to draw the line between rights and powers. What the Constitution does, and the Bill of Rights as well, is set up the framework for the line. The Bill of Rights in particular takes certain rights and says "the government can never infringe upon these." In effect the Bill of Rights grants these rights to the people forever. These rights are different from say the right of a gay person to marry which is near the line between rights and powers and may be crossing soon.

Now I already know that all of the times he listed the places it says "rights".. in the actual amendment it says after it "..shall not be infringed". Meaning that right already existed.

The exception is the 6th Amendment..


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

This appears to be a positive right, or are things different because it has to do with someone already accused?

[BKV]

I'm not a Constitutional scholar but from what I've read, the Constitution doesn't grant us rights, but the people grant the government it's power.


That is correct, the Constitution is not a bill of rights, it's a bill between government and people which the government has agreed not to cross certain lines (not sure "or else what")



I'm discussing it with someone and here is their response that confuses me..



Now I already know that all of the times he listed the places it says "rights".. in the actual amendment it says after it "..shall not be infringed". Meaning that right already existed.


No rights exist or matter unless they are first recognized.



The exception is the 6th Amendment..

This appears to be a positive right, or are things different because it has to do with someone already accused?

positive and negative right is just a lazy & bogus distinction where people excuse themselves from defending rights they can't afford to or prefer not to. negative rights means "if we leave you alone, this is what you have" positive right means "we have to actually give it to you".

[ChaosControl]

I only believe in negative rights. I call these rights because they exist when others do not interfere with you. I think anything else is more a privilege or benefit, it can be granted and taken away, it only exists when an outside body grants it.

The constitution doesn't grant rights, it restricts what rights effectively can be compromised by the government. The bill of rights just lists some negative rights that it guarantees will never be compromised, but it doesn't grant anything. The misconception that it grants rights is one of the reasons some of the founders opposed it being included.

A positive right, like when idiots say we have the "right to affordable healthcare", is listed no where in the constitution. Besides, such could not be a right as it could not exist without an outside force. It is a benefit, not a right. So someone could argue, we should have the benefit of national health coverage, but they can not argue that we have a right to it because such a thing is impossible. If it was listed in the constitution, which would mean the constitution granted benefits, not rights which is impossible, they obviously still could not say we have the right to it, only that we are guaranteed the benefit of it.

[Nate K]

I only believe in negative rights. I call these rights because they exist when others do not interfere with you. I think anything else is more a privilege or benefit, it can be granted and taken away, it only exists when an outside body grants it.

The constitution doesn't grant rights, it restricts what rights effectively can be compromised by the government. The bill of rights just lists some negative rights that it guarantees will never be compromised, but it doesn't grant anything. The misconception that it grants rights is one of the reasons some of the founders opposed it being included.

A positive right, like when idiots say we have the "right to affordable healthcare", is listed no where in the constitution. Besides, such could not be a right as it could not exist without an outside force. It is a benefit, not a right. So someone could argue, we should have the benefit of national health coverage, but they can not argue that we have a right to it because such a thing is impossible. If it was listed in the constitution, which would mean the constitution granted benefits, not rights which is impossible, they obviously still could not say we have the right to it, only that we are guaranteed the benefit of it.

So what about the 6th Amendment?

[ChaosControl]

So what about the 6th Amendment?

Well ultimately the bill of rights is a list of items that are explicitly limiting the government on.
Technically we are expected to have these things regardless, since there is no authorization for government to do otherwise.

The 6th amendment true isn't really a negative right. So yes the bill of rights isn't just a list of negative rights, a better way I guess is just to call it a list of government restrictions.

[nate895]

For one, you guys aren't arguing about positive (government has to give you something) and negative (government can't do something to you) rights, you are talking about positive (law made) and natural (God given) rights. Negative rights are rights that simply prevents the government from interfering with an aspect of our life, such as the right to keep and bear arms without government interference. Positive rights as opposed to negative rights is what socialists believe, that you have a right to health care and therefore the government must tax to provide it for you.

On the other hand, natural rights are God given and are there because you are human. Just because you live in a state of nature, doesn't mean you have the right to kill people, it just means that it will be easier to do so. Positive rights in this sense is the false theory that the government has the inherent power to make laws in all cases whatsoever and that only a "Bill of Rights" in the organic law can prevent violation of some rights.