[orangepurple]

You assume "rights" exist in a vacuum. The so called "rights" given to "the people" are clearly defined in the constitution and the bill of rights. Judges compare laws to those documents for conflicts, and err on the side of the constitution and the bill of rights. They do not make rights up as they please.

[krapp]

> The so called "rights" given to "the people" are clearly defined in the constitution and the bill of rights.

  9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

  10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What is clearly defined by the Constitution is that the set of rights claimed by the people is unbounded and explicitly not limited to what is enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights - those rights are assumed to exist 'in a vaccum' in that they are declared to be "inalienable" and "endowed by the Creator," irrespective of one's personal belief in the validity of claims of divine sovereignty.

The Constitution does not define rights, rather it defines the limits of the government's power to abridge those rights.

[EricE]

>The Constitution does not define rights, rather it defines the limits of the government's power to abridge those rights.

It's frightening that so few seem to really get this.