[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am genuinely curious where some of the more specific rights would come from (jury trial). Do you have a natural right to a trial by jury in criminal cases???

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that you didn't actually read my response, just like you didn't actually read the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did read your reply (and I've glanced over the Constitution a few times in the past.) In your reply, you sound like you want to change the meaning of "right" to fit your particularly ideology. You specifically say with regard to the various jury/trial rights "These aren't "rights" in any meaningful sense - they're more along the lines of comforts the government promises." I guess if you specifically exclude those rights that the government promises from your definition of "rights", then you are correct (by a simple truism) that the Constitution doesn't grant any rights.

Of course, that limitation on the definition isn't a commonly accepted one, though I'm pretty sure you already know that.

Still curious about the right to citizenship if born in the US (probably outside of your definition of "right" anyway.) Right to vote -- how about that one?

[/ QUOTE ]

The right to vote isn't granted by the government or the Constitution, it is logically derived from other more basic rights, like the right of self-ownership, combined with the reality of democracy. The fact that certain people were not able to EXPRESS this right that they ALWAYS HAD is not evidence that the government gave them this right. The government just eventually put two and two together and realized they had to write it down so other people didn't forget.

[/ QUOTE ]

That the right to vote may or may not be based on another right does not diminish its value and character as an independent right. Again, we have a different word for the concept you are getting at --- "natural rights." Natural Rights are a subset of Rights. Don't bastardize the definition of the word to try to make some point just because it happens to fit your ideology. But for the Constitution there are several rights that you have today that you wouldn't have tomorrow. I have listed several (including the right to vote.) You might very well have the right of self-ownership, but without the Constitution you wouldn't have the specific right to vote. You wouldn't have the specific right to a jury trial. You wouldn't have the specific right to citizenship when you are born in the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

But thats exactly my point. Even without the Constitution, I would absolutely have the right to vote (given the reality of democracy). There might be those who would infringe on that right, but just because someone rapes me does not mean I do not have the right to self-ownership. If the Constitution had never been amended to include universal suffrage I would still have that right. It follows logically from my other rights. The government would simply not RECOGNIZE the right that I do, in fact, still have.

Thats the whole point of discussions like these. The legislature could get together tomorrow and pass twenty new amendments to the Constitution, taking away and granting me any sort of arbitrary rights they happened to think were clever. But when I wake up, I do not have any more or less rights than I do right now. Some of the rights I currently have might get trampled on, and the government might start recognizing rights that I've had all along, but the number of rights I currently have is not contingent on the United States government.