edit: Just because I'm stating this fact, doesn't mean that I endorse it. Please, just because you agree that the world unfortunately is this way, don't downvote me as if I'm the cause of the current state of affairs. I'm not old enough or powerful enough to be so.
Is the author a constitutional lawyer? Because if not, I really can't trust any of this.
The reason that constitutional lawyers exist is because this short document is deceptively sophisticated and every interpretation of every stanza has seen its day in court almost every generation since its authorship.
Just reading something and assuming that the legal ramifications are clear and apparent without knowing the extensive history of the actual legal ramifications belongs more in the world of political opinion than anything remotely approximate to legal standing.
It's almost as if a corpus of court proceedings a 100 meters long should be affixed to every word in order to gain an appreciation for what is legally pursuant via the constitution.
I'm not sure I can agree with everything you're saying. Was the Constitution written with the expectation that later generations would consider it "deceptively sophisticated" and that only "constitutional lawyers" should be able to make sense of it? Was it purposefully written so that later constitutional lawyers could interpret it in new ways that seem counter-intuitive to everyone else? I don't think so.
No, I am not a lawyer. The idea that only lawyers can be qualified to comment on the law is myth promulgated by lawyers. There is a reason that the first three words of the Constitution are "We the People" and not "We the Lawyers."
ah, it was "We the [non-native][male][land-owning][non-enslaved] people [between specific longitude and latitudinal points][that aren't corporations, at least, for another hundred years][unless you are a slave owner, in which case multiply your the number of slaves you own by 0.6 and then add it to you (aka, +1)]".
We have been actively struggling and expanding just that alone for generations now.
If find yourself wanting for a piece of paper to enumerate your rights for you (I know I certainly do not), you can do a hell of a lot better than the US constitution. That document is primarily just a set of rules for a government, not a declaration of rights.
For starters, check out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is an easy read and meant for all people, not just those who happen to reside in a specific geographic area.
My rule of thumb though? If you think a piece of paper is something that grants you a right, then it's clearly not a fundamental right.
>My rule of thumb though? If you think a piece of paper is something that grants you a right, then it's clearly not a fundamental right.
All rights, natural or legal only exist so long as they are protected. The Bill of Rights is a promise by the US Government to protect those rights stated.
The fact that a particular right is promised to be upheld in a document has no bearing on whether it is a 'natural' or 'legal right'.
Perhaps I should rephrase my previous comment to reflect some vagueness associated with the subject. While in a sense rights can exist for all things of all circumstances, they effectively do not exist for the those who cannot utilize them. Someone can give up their rights to something can they not?
But more to the point, the example you gave is not an example of a 'natural right'. I am assuming you are using 'fundamental' and 'natural' interchangeably, for the phrase fundamental right is something generally understood in the context of a legal system. And when talking about rights in a legal context, those rights which haven't been granted do not exist, and we are both aware that women were not granted the right to vote until 1920.
Since the right to vote certainly wasn't a legal right until 1920, one can only assume you aren't talking about legal rights, but rather some ideal you hold to be true. The idea that there are certain standards of morality and humanity that all beneficent bodies must observe is something that loosely falls within the realm of "natural rights", ie those rights that have not been bestowed by human law. And the idea that the right to vote exists beyond the realm of human law and government is absurd, as I am sure you are well aware.
If you are of the mind that fundamental rights are those which adhere to a certain well accepted set of values ( as seen in the case of UDHR ), then this is really a discussion on ethics, and therefore any difference of opinion concerning a set of 'fundamental rights' will be arbitrary.
Any system of ethics or rights or whatever the hell you want to call it that does not include 'the right of women to vote' is shit and not worthy of consideration.
Rights are not given, nor bestowed. They cannot be given up or taken away. Any other conceptual system of "rights" is bullshit pandering to those who wish to oppress.
see federalist papers number 51 and 10 to see the thoughts on the constitution and human rights. Items covered include civil rights, religious freedoms, minority rights, the tyranny of the majority, balancing the power of conflicting classifications of rights, etc ...
I actually don't find them difficult but mostly because I've read a lot of stuff from the era. It's kind of like Shakespeare, it's hard initially but then you get in the swing of things. There's also plenty of civics style booklets with explanations.
The interesting thing about using court rulings to interpret the law is that legal precedent is only created when some lawyer is on the wrong side of a case...
Is the author a constitutional lawyer? Because if not, I really can't trust any of this.
The reason that constitutional lawyers exist is because this short document is deceptively sophisticated and every interpretation of every stanza has seen its day in court almost every generation since its authorship.
Just reading something and assuming that the legal ramifications are clear and apparent without knowing the extensive history of the actual legal ramifications belongs more in the world of political opinion than anything remotely approximate to legal standing.
It's almost as if a corpus of court proceedings a 100 meters long should be affixed to every word in order to gain an appreciation for what is legally pursuant via the constitution.