[otterley]

> rights are not granted by interpretation of the law. They exist naturally unless circumscribed by it.

The legal system in the U.S. isn't based on some Hobbesian philosophical notion of "rights," even if the Founders were inspired by it. It's based on interpretations of how our rights, enumerated in law or a Constitution or otherwise, may or may not have been violated under the circumstances of a case.

If you said what you just said to a judge in court, they'd either laugh in your face, or laugh about you with staff in chambers after you leave.

[bhpm]

> may or may not have been violated under the circumstances of a case.

And if no case is before the court? What then? Is it automatically illegal?

[otterley]

It’s unclear. Life is full of ambiguity.