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.
