Rights

[Rick_O_Shea]

I have spent some considerable time thinking about "what is a right?"

Before I expose my answer to this riddle, I would sincerely like to engage serious, thinking, people in their understandings of this most essential artefact.

[Rick_O_Shea]

(as a hint...if you believe that there is such a thing as a "right to education" or "right to a job" or "right to healthcare"...then you are probably not going to like what I have to say)

[333]

Peace,

Too many people misunderstand the difference between Rights and Responsibilities.


333

[Rick]

Good question.

I'll take a swing at it. I think humans have an innate sense of what is fair and not fair. Call it a God given, or a natural, sense. Adults learn to supress the outrage at being delivered an unfairness, but in a child it is very well developed...."no fair, Tommy got more ice cream!"

Out of this sense of fairness we recognize that some things are unacceptable.

Our founding fathers got it pretty close: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (the "pursuit of happiness" clause was almost the "right to own property", but happiness won out in the final draft)

We have a right to defend ourselves when being attacked. We have a right to live free of oppression. We have a right to worship God as we see fit. We have a right to think our own thoughts and speak our own mind.

We don't havea right to housing, health care or a Lambroginni; but we do have a right to be treated fairly on a fundamental level.

[Rick]

A few more thoughts.

Basic rights are common to all people, of all nationalities, sexes, ages, social stratas, etc. *

Basic rights are not granted by anyone else; they are inherent to the person. *They cannot morally be taken away by anyone.

Being a Christian, I believe rights emmanate from God, not everyone would agree with that; but it does move the denying of rights to a level of "Who are you to be taking away what God has given?"

I still think it boils down to an ingrained sense of a fundamental fairness that people are secure in themselves; they have a right to exist.

edited to add:

No one has a right to demand that anyone else defends their right to exist; but society has a responsibility to protect the rights of the citizens within it's realm.

[333]

Peace,

A person has a natural right to life, a person has a natural right to liberty, a person has a natural right to ALL the fruits of their labor.

It is right that we approach these issues as god given or natural, never to be denied by law, as their existence is inherent.
It is right that we tolerate others rights, as long as they are not detrimental to others' and other's rights.
It is right that focused honorable motivated individuals, enjoy their life, how ever they see fit, free from invasion and oppression.
It is right to educate and over see that ones rights are protected, perpetuated for posterity.
It is right to support these self evident declarations and to pass them along to those who may have never heard of such a concept.

What is right, however, is defined by the individual and their model of the world. If they know all the blessings of liberty, then their perspective would reflect those facts. On the other hand if they only know oppression and tyranny and deprivation, then like wise their model of the world will reflect it.

I believe in their essence, what is right and what are rights, is common sense, to a certain level, ones empathy and understanding of life.
One does not need to experience tyranny first hand to know they would not wish it for themselves or on another.

Sorry for the ramble.

333

[wax]

333- A person has a natural right to life, a person has a natural right to liberty, a person has a natural right to ALL the fruits of their labor.

Wax- Wow!
Philosaphy is a funny thing, many assume too much.

Perhaps the best example of this failure concerning assumption is the discussion about "rights".
It is true that rights are universal because a right can only be claimed to be a right if it can not be taken away.
Our founding fathers attempted to draw up "rights" from the standpoint of the society in which they lived... they did amazingly well because they got one out of three.

Life: Ah... erm... no! Abortion proves this one false, along with murder of course. Life can be taken away, thus not a right.
Liberty: Again rather foolish. Ask an inmate.
The pursuit of happiness: Ah... extremely enlightened for the time period! Yes, the pursuit of nearly anything is a natural right which can not be taken away by anyone or anything.
I can choose to be happy no matter what circumstances I am in or what is done to me... I can even decide that i will be happy to be executed if I wish, you can't stop me!

So, besides the pursuit or attempt of nearly anything, what are real natural rights?
It can be a bit tricky, but a list can be made.

Belief/faith: This is sort of attached to the "Right to worship". Worship of course implies an action which can be taken away but belief is the foundation of that action. In other words, even if all "worship" were forbidden society can not stop one from thinking in a worshipful manner.
I might not be able to kneel and pray in public but you can't stop me from communicating with "God" if I believe God can read my thoughts.
But the right to belief goes even farther than religion. I can believe that yellow is really blue and there is nothing that can stop me!

The right to die: Now this one is sort of strange to me because society actually believes that it can be regulated. But what society is normally talking about concerns not the "Right to die" but rules concerning participation in that death.
All living creatures have a right to stop living.
Science and the medical field has shown that a human can simply choose to die and there is nothing that can be done about it. Doctors reference it all of the time, someone simply "loses the will to live" and the body shuts down.
Society can make it illegal to shoot yourself in the head but it can't stop you from simply shutting down.

Closely related but different is the "Right to self defense":
This one is often misunderstood by novice (and even learned) philosaphers.
Every living creature has the right to self defense, it can not be negated and it can not be taken away.
But the right to self defense does not mean you have the right to actually defend yourself! Confusing? Not really.

Nothing can stop the attempt to defend oneself, but there is no right to being successful at it. A baby can attempt to scratch the eyes of a predator at its throat but that doesn't mean it won't die. A mule can kick, a legged creature can run, a man with a gun at his head can duck, none of them can be stopped from doing it and yet none of the attempts can be assured to work.
One famous philosapher once argued that romoving a gun from a nightstand took away a victims right to self defense (this argument was made concerning abortion strangely enough) but the premise was wrong.
You can take the victims gun, but not the rightto defend himself... you can make it harder, but you can't negate it.

Right of predation: This one is much messier in the confines of society. We must remember that society is a false construct, created and designed by man.
A predator has the right to be a predator.
Just as prey has the right to attempt not being preyed upon the predator has the right to attempt predation.
And this causes a great deal of confusion in society because in short a killer has the right to attempt to kill and society can not stop that attempt.
It can condemn it (and certainly punish after the attempt) but it can not stop it.

There are others, but we will start with those basics.

[macgeoghagen]

A right is something that everyone(regardless of age, race, political affiliation, citizenship) is allowed to do or have, as long as they have not interfered with another person's rights.

rights would include liberty, life, etc.

things that are not rights are privileges. some say voting is a right, but it is a privilege that we reserve to citizens of our country ags 18 and over. there is criteria for allowing it, so it is a privilege instead of a right. contrast that to the right to own property. everyone, to include foreignors and children, can own something. It may be just a pillow case with some clothes and a picture or two, but it is that person's property. we don't go around taking people's stuff just because theyre from somewhere else. we recognise that person's right to his stuff.

Health care is not a right. it is a service. rights do not require one person to submit to the demands of another. if a supposed "right" takes another person's right away from him, then it is not a right. the "right" to health care or education is not a right because it takes away a doctor's or teacher's right of liberty and property, by forcing them to use their facilities in the service of another person.

take a look at my 7 rights document in the rights/freedoms section

[suijurisfreeman]

The following is taken from my treatise titled: *
A Treatise of Where American Government Derived Its Just Powers to Govern:Examining the Origins of the Concept of the Consent of the governed; Entering Into Society; Becoming a Member of the Body Politic; and a Party to the Social Compact.
by Winston Ward Johnson

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF RIGHT?

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 1323. *RIGHT. As a noun, an d taken in an abstract sense, means justice, ethical correctness, or consonance with the rules of law or the principles of morals. *In this signification it answers to the one meaning of the Latin 'jus', and serves to indicate law in the abstract, considered as the foundation of all rights, or the cmplex of underlying moral principles which impart the character of justice to all positive law, or give it an ethical content. *As a noun, and taken in a concrete sense, a power, a privilege, faclilty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon another. *Rights are defined generally as 'powers of free action'. *And the primal rights pretaining to men are enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law. *But leaving the abstract moral sphere, and giving to the term a juristic content, a 'right' is well defined as 'a capacity residing in one man of controlling, with the assent and assistance of the state, the actions of others.'
As an *adjective, the term 'right' means just, morally correct, consonant with ethical principles or rules of positive law. *It is the opposite of wrong, unjust, illegal.
A power, privilege, or immunity guaranteed under a constitution, statutes, or decisional laws, or claimed as a result of long usuage. *See Bill of Rights; civil Liberties; Civil Rights Acts; Natural Rights.
In a narrower signification, an interest or title in an object of property; a just and legal claim to hold, use, or enjoy it, or to convey or donate it, as he may please.
A legally enforceable claim of one person against another, that the other shall do a given act, or shall not do a given act. *Restatement of the Law of Property ss 1.
that which one person ought to have or receive from another, it being withheld from him, or not in his possession. *In this sense 'right' has the force of 'claim', and is properly expressed by the Latin 'jus'.
See also Conditional right; Correlative rights; Droit; Jus; Justice; Natural rights; Power; Recht; Vested rights.

to be continued

[suijurisfreeman]

(General Classification)
Rights may be described as perfect or imperfect, according as their action or scope is clear, settled, and deeterminate, or is vague and unfixed.
Rights are also either in personam or in rem. *a right in personam is one which imposes an obligation on a definite person. *A right in rem is one which imposes an obligation on Persons generally; i.e. either on all the world or on all the world except certain determinate person. *Thus if I am entitled to exclude all persons from a given piece of land, I have a right in rem in respect of that land; and, if there are one or more persons, A, B, and C, whom I am not entitled to exclude from it, my right is still a right in rem.
Rights may also be described as either primary or secondary. *Primary rights are those which can be created without reference to rights already existing. *Secondary rights can only arise for the purpose of protecting or enforcing primary rights. *They are either preventive (protective) or remedial (reparative).
Preventive or protective secondary rights exist in order to prevent the infringement or loss of primary rights. *They are judicial when they require the assistance of a court of law for their enforcement, and extrajudicial when they are capable of being exercised by the party himself. *Remedail or reparative secondary rights are also either judicial or extrajudicial. *they may further be divided into (1) rights of restitution or restoration, which entitle the person injured to be replaced in his original position; (2) rights of enforcement, which entitle the person injured to the performance of an act by the person bound; and (3) rights of satisfaction or compensation.
With respect to the ownership of external objects of property, rights may be classed as absolute and qualified. *An absolute right gives to the person in whom it inheres the uncontrollable dominion over the object at all times and for all purposes. *A qualified right gives the possessor a right to the object for certain purposes or under certain circumstances only. *Such is the right of a bailee to recover the article bailed when it has been unlawfully taken from him by a stranger.
Rights are also either legal or equitable. *The former is the case where the person seeking to enforce the right for his own benefit has the legal title and a remedy at law. *The latter are such as are enforceable inequity; as, at the suit of cestui que trust. *Procedurally, under rules of civil procedure, both legal and equitable rights are enforced in the same court under a single cause of action.

to be continued

[suijurisfreeman]

(Constitutional Rights)
There is also a classification of rights, with respect to the constitution of civil society. *Thus, according to Blackstone, 'the rights of persons, considered in their natural capacities, are of two sorts, absolute and relative; absolute, which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons; relative, which are incident to them as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other.' *1 Blackstone Comm. 123.
Rights are also classified in constitutional law as natural, civil, and political, to which there is sometimes added the class of 'personal rights'.
Natural rights are those which grow out of the nature of man and depend upon personality, as distinguished from such as are created by law and depend upon civilized society; or they are those which, by fair deduction from the present physical, moral, social, and religious characteristics of man, he must be invested with, and which he ought to have realized for him in a jural society, in order to fulfill the ends to which his nature calls him. *Such are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
Civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or adminstration of government.
They include the rights of property, marriage, equal protection of the laws, freedom of contract, trial by jury, etc. *Or, as otherwise defined, civil rights are rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. *Such term may also refer, in its very general sense, to rights capable or being enforced or redressed in a civil action. *Also a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United States by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, and by various acts of Congress (e.g. Civil Rights Acts) made in pursuance thereof. *See Bill of Rights; Civil liberties; Civil Rights Acts.
Political rights consist in the power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, that of suffrage, the right to hold public office, and the right of petition.
Personal rights is a term of rather vague import, but generally it may be said to mean the right of personal security, comprising those of life, limb, body, health, reputation, and the right of personal liberty.

to be continued

[suijurisfreeman]

WHAT ARE 'NATURAL RIGHTS'; 'INHERENT RIGHTS'; 'INALIENABLE RIGHT'; 'CIVIL RIGHTS'; 'POLITICAL RIGHTS'?

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 1027 *NATURAL RIGHTS. *Those which grow out of nature of man and depend upon his personality and are distinguished from those which are created by positive laws enacted by a duly constituted government to create an orderly civilized society. *In Re Gogabashvele's Estate, 195 Cal. App. 2d. 503, 16 Cal. Rptr. 77, 91.

INHERENT RIGHT, p. 7 One which abides in a person and is not given from something or someone outside itself. *A right which a person has because he is a person. *See inalienable rights.

INALIENABLE RIGHTS, p. 759 * Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights; e.g., freedom of speech, or religion, due process, and equal protection of the laws. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W. 2d 97, 101. *See Bill of Rights.

ALIENABLE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, p. 72 *Right to a trial by jury, to counsel, and not to incriminate one's self, and related matters are 'alienable constitutional rights' which may be waived whenever assertable. *Weck v. District Court of 2nd Judicial Dist., 158 Colo. 521, 408 P. 2d 987, 990 *See also Inalienable Rights.

CIVIL RIGHTS, p. 246. *See Civil Liberties.

CIVIL LIBERTIES, p. 246 *Personal, natural rights guaranteed and protected by Constitution; e.g. freedom of speech, press, freedom from discrimination, etc. *Body of Law dealing with natural liberties, shorn of excesses which invade equal rights of others. *Constitutionally, they are restraints on government. *Sowers v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission, 20 Ohio Misc. 1115, 252 N.E. 2d 463, 476. *State law may recognize liberty interests more extensive than those independently protected by the Federal Constitution. *Milis v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291, 300, 102 S.Ct. 2442, 2449, 73 L.Ed. 2d 16 (1982) *See also Bill of Rights; Civil Rights Act; Fundamental Rights.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, p. 674. Those rights which have their source, and are explicitly or implicitly guaranteed, in the federal Constitution, Price v.Cohen, C.A. Pa., 715 F 2d 87, 93, and state constitutions, Sidle v. Majors, 264 Ind. 206, 341 N.E. 2d 763. See e.g. Bill of Rights.
Challenged legislation that significantly burdens a 'fundamental right' (examples include First Amendment rights, privacy, and the right to travel interstate) will be reviewed under a stricter standard of review. A law will be held violative of the due process clause if it is not closely tailored to promote a compelling or overriding interest of government. A similar principle applies under Equal Protection Clause.

[suijurisfreeman]

BILL OF RIGHTS, P. 168. *First ten amendments to U.S. Constitution providing for individual rights, freedoms, and protections (see appendix, infra). *See also Bill; Patient's Bill of Rights.

LEGAL RIGHT, p. 897. *Natural rights, rights existing as result of contract, and rights created or recognized by law. *Fine v. Pratt, Tex. Civ. App., 150 S.W. 2d 308, 311.

POLITICAL RIGHTS, p. 1324-25. *Constitutional rights. *Rights are also classified in constitutional as natural, civil, and political, to which there is sometimes added the class of 'personal rights'.
Page 1325, political rights consist in the power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, that of suffrage, the right to hold public office, and the right of petition.

The Essential Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, p. 151-2. *Hitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of the natural rights of man. *We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and to show how the one originates from the other. *Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, not to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. *His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights. *But in order to pursue this distinction with more precision, it will be necessary to mark the different qualities of natural and civil rights.
A few words will explain this. *Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. *Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. *Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being as a member of society. *Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. *Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.
From this short view it will be easy to distinguish between that class of natural rights which man retains after entering into society and those which he throws into the common stock as a member of society.
The natural rights which he retains are all those in which the power to execute it is a s perfect in the individual as the right itself. *Among this class, as is before mentioned, are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind; consequently religion is one of those rights. *The natural rights which are not retained, are all those in which, though the right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is defective. *They answer not his purpose. *A man, by natural right, has a right to judge in his own cause; and so far as the right of the mind is concerned, he never surrenders it. *But what availeth it him to judge, if he has not power to redrress? *He therefdore deposits this right in the common stock of society, and takes the arm of society, of which he is a part, in preference and in addition to hi own. *Society grants him nothing. *Every man is a proprietor in society, and draws on the capital as a matter of right.
From these premisses two or three certain conclusions will follow: First, that every civil rights grows out of a natural right; or, in other words, is a natural right exchanged.
Secondly, that civil power properly considered as such is made up of the aggregate of that class of the natural rights of man, which becomes defective in the individual in point of power, and answers not his purpose, but when collected to a focus becomes competent to the purpose of everyone.
Thirdly, that the power produced from the aggregate of natural rights, imperfect in power in the individual, cannot be applied to invade the natural rights which are retained in the individual, and in which the power to execute is as perfect as the right itself.
We have now, in a few words, traced man from a natural individual to a member of society, and shown, or endeavoured to show, the quality of the natural rights retained, and of those which are exchanged for civil rights. Let us now apply these principles to governments.
to be continued

[suijurisfreeman]

Gow v. Bingham, 57 Misc. 66, 107 N.Y.S. 1011 S.Ct. of Kings Co., N.Y. (12/7/1907) *The right to personal liberty, which exists independent of any express provisions of law, includes not only absolute freedom of travel, but the preservation of the person inviolate against attack or compulsory stripping or exposure.
Constitutional Law -- Key 83 (1) *Constitution of New York, Art. I, ss1, providing that no person shall be deprived of any of his rights except by the law of the land or judgment of his peers, and section 6, providing that he shall not be deprived of his liberty without due process of law, are not the sources of the right, but constitute a shield against unwarranted interference with such right by any department of the government, whether executive, legislative, or judicial.
p. 3 -- There are certain rights pertaining to mankind which have their origin independent of any express provision of law, and which are termed 'natural rights'. One of these is the right of personal liberty. *This includes not only absolute freedom to everyone to go where and when he pleases, but the right to preserve his person inviolate from attack by any other person. *This right to one's person may be said to be a right complete immunity, to be let alone. *Cooley on Torts (3rd Ed.) 33. *the inviolability of the person is as much invaded by a compulsory stripping and exposure as by a blow. *Union Pacific R.R. Co., v. Bottsford, 141 U.S. 250, 11 S.Ct. 1000, 35 L.Ed. 734,
McQuigan v. D., L&W R.R. Co., 129 N.Y. 50, 29 N.E. 235, 14 L.R.A. 466, 26 Am. St. Rep. 507. So sacred is this right in its character that the people of the state, speaking in the most solemn form, namely through the state constitution, have declared that no person shall be deprived of any of his rights unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers. Constitution of New York, Art. I, ss 1. Nor shall he be deprived of his liberty without due process of law. Id. Art. I, ss6. These constitutional provisions are not the sources of the right. They are in the nature of a shield against any unwarranted interference with such rights by any department of the government -- executive, legislative, or judicial. But, when one becomes a member of a community, this absolute right confirmed by constitutional provisions of necessity yields to another another and higher right. The absolute freedom from restraint which the individual has a natural yields to the necessities of the public welfare, when such public welfare demands that, for its sake, this right be temporarily impaired. It is in accordance with the demand of this necessity that temporary restraint of a person accused of crime until such time as the accused can be determined to be false or well founded finds the authority for its existence. But this right of temporary restraint is zealously guarded and restricted.

to be continued

to be continued

[suijurisfreeman]

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 7 *INHERE. *To Exist in and inseparable from somehting else; to stick fast. *To be inherent.

INHERENT POWERS. *An authority possessed without its being derived from another. *A right, ability, or faculty, of doing a thing, without receiving that right, ability, or faculty from another. *Powers originating from the nature of government or sovereignty, i.e., powers over and beyond those explicitly granted in the constitution or reasonably to be implied from express grants; e.g. in the foreign policy area, the Executive's inherent powers have been held to confer authority upon the President to settle the claims of American natiionals against a foreign state as part of a diplomatic agreement. *Charles T. Main Int'l., Inc v. Khuzestan Water & Power Author., C.A. Mass., 651 F 2d 800, 809-10. *See also power.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 759. *INALIENABLE. *Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferrred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e.g. liberty.

Sowers v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission, 20 Ohio Misc., 115, 252 N.E. 2d 463 (10/3/1969), p. 2 [6], "Civil liberties are natural rights which appertain originally and essentially to each person as a Human being and are inherent in his nature; such rights, which are constitutionally protected, are not actually rights but are immunities, or rrestraints on government."
As stated in 15 American Jurisprudence 2d 406: "Civil rights have been defined simply as such rights as the law will enforce, or as all those rights which the law gives a person, i.e., a civil right is a legally enforceable claim of one person against another. 'Natural rights' are those rights which appertain originally and essentially to each person as a human being and are inherent in his nature, as contrasted to civil rights, which are given, defined and circumscribed by such positive laws, enacted by covilized communities, as are necessary to the maintenance of organized civilized communities, as are necessary to the maintenance of organized government." See byers v. Sun Savings Bank, 41 Okla. 728, 139 P. 948, 52 L.R.A., N.S., 320.
Pallack, 27 Ohio State Law Journal 567: "However, what we're reserved in this context were not actually rights but immunities -- restraints on the government."
President John F. Kennedy: "The Bill of Rights, in the eyes of its framers, was a catalogue of immunities, not a schedule of claims. It was, in other words, a Bill of Liberties. When civil rights are seen as claims and civil liberties as immunities, the government's differing responsibilities become clear. For the security of rights the energy of government is essential. For the security of liberty restraint is indispensable."

[suijurisfreeman]

Byers v. Sun Savings Bank, 41 Okla. 728, 139 P. 948 (S.Ct. of Okla.) 2/28/1914, p. 1-2: "By the term 'natural rights' is meant 'those rights which are necessaryly inherent, rights which are innate and which come from the very elementry laws of naturre, such as life, liberty, the prusuit of happiness, and self-preservation.
By the term 'civil rights' in its broader sense, is meant those rights which are the outgrowth of civilization, which arise from the needs of civil as distinguished from barbaric communities, and are given, defined, and circumscribed by such positive laws, enacted by such communities as are necessary to the maintenance of orgainzed government, and comprrehends all rights to which civilized communities undertake, by the enactment of positive laws, to prrescribe, abridge, protect, and enforce."

p. 2 [1] [2] extensive discussion on 'natural rights' and 'civil rights'.
A determination of the first proposition necessitates an inquiry into what is meant by the terms 'civil rights' and 'natural rights', and what distinction exists between the terms, and how far 'natural rights' are controlled or abridged by 'civil rights'. As we understand the term 'natural rights' from a study of text-books, decisions, and lexicons, as well as the rules of reason, they are those . . .
The term should not be confounded with, nor distinguished from, the term 'political rights', as seems to have been done by some authorities. It is a broader and more comprehensive term than the term 'political rights'. The word 'civil' is derived from the Latin 'civilis', a citizen, as distinguished from a savage or barbarian, and the term 'civil rights' comprenhends all rights . . .
'Political rights', therefore, such as the right of suffrage, the right to hold office, and the right to participate in the adminstration of governmental affairs, are included within and abridged, extended, protected, and enforced by the more comprehensive term 'civil rights', which comprehends and circumscribes all rights which the code, written or unwritten, of a civilized community gives to its citizens, including the less comprehensive term 'civil' as distinguished from 'military' rights. See: webster's Unabridged Dictionary; Anderson's Law Dictionary; Black's Law Dictionary; Bouvier's Law Dictionary, titles 'civil rights';
The immediate inquiry therefore is: to what extent those primary rights which inhere from and are endowed by nature are limited or abridged by our satute.

That's a small portion of my research on 'rights'!

[333]

Peace,

Well done, a long read but .... vindicating.

I believe my "rights" your "rights" everyones "rights" are theirs simply due to the fact they have knowledge of such concepts and notions. Hence infect them all with knowledge I agree..

333