3 ms·

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, It spe

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, It specifically says that the natural right will not be violated, how is that a legal right?

kube-system 5y ago
The constitution is a legal document that is formally upheld by the US legal system. Many of the ideas within it were derived from other places, but it, itself, is a codified legal document.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  It is a legal document guaranteeing a natural right. The Bill of Rights doesn't codify much of anything, it lays out certain things further laws can't tread on without extraordinary permission granted.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    It guarantees much more than a natural right, and does so with the backing power of a legal institution. For example, the UDHR doesn't even mention the word "warrant", and it doesn't do anything to compel enforcement. The BoR is, by plain definition, a codification of rights. To codify means to make into law, which is what it is: a law, implementing the formal recognition rights... and it does so by making illegal specific abuses.
jhgb 5y ago
It's a legal right because some kind of law (in this case the constitution) gives it to you.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  I quoted the Fourth Amendment, it is written in a way to clearly state it is not giving you rights. It is protecting the rights you already have.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    People's rights are a collective agreement of the society, crazy superstitions of the past centuries about "God-given rights" notwithstanding.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      That's not the way the US Bill of Rights frames it. It says that purely by existing people have certain rights, and society chooses which ones should be protected and which should be surrendered. By having means of communication, I naturally have the right to free speech. The government can only limit that freedom. It's supposed to be a way of showing that the government is subservient to the citizens, as it does not have the power to grant citizens rights. I doubt it's effective though, as most people seem to think the Constitution grants rights.
      - jhgb 5y ago
        > It says that purely by existing people have certain rights Maybe that's just me, but that's way too abstract for me. Have planets and stars always had certain rights purely by existing as well? > and society chooses which ones should be protected Well in that case you could make the case that every single person has every single right anyone could possibly have and the society chooses a subset of these rights as actual laws. I guess this is a way to eat your cake and have it, too, since it makes the difference between my and your view unobservable.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - kube-system 5y ago
        The constitution grants legal rights on the basis that natural rights already exist. You are right that people have rights without the constitution. Other people are right that the constitution grants rights. The confusion is that you are both talking about different types of rights.

kube-system 5y ago

The constitution is a legal document that is formally upheld by the US legal system. Many of the ideas within it were derived from other places, but it, itself, is a codified legal document.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
It is a legal document guaranteeing a natural right. The Bill of Rights doesn't codify much of anything, it lays out certain things further laws can't tread on without extraordinary permission granted.
- kube-system 5y ago
  It guarantees much more than a natural right, and does so with the backing power of a legal institution. For example, the UDHR doesn't even mention the word "warrant", and it doesn't do anything to compel enforcement. The BoR is, by plain definition, a codification of rights. To codify means to make into law, which is what it is: a law, implementing the formal recognition rights... and it does so by making illegal specific abuses.

jhgb 5y ago

It's a legal right because some kind of law (in this case the constitution) gives it to you.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
I quoted the Fourth Amendment, it is written in a way to clearly state it is not giving you rights. It is protecting the rights you already have.
- jhgb 5y ago
  People's rights are a collective agreement of the society, crazy superstitions of the past centuries about "God-given rights" notwithstanding.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    That's not the way the US Bill of Rights frames it. It says that purely by existing people have certain rights, and society chooses which ones should be protected and which should be surrendered. By having means of communication, I naturally have the right to free speech. The government can only limit that freedom. It's supposed to be a way of showing that the government is subservient to the citizens, as it does not have the power to grant citizens rights. I doubt it's effective though, as most people seem to think the Constitution grants rights.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      > It says that purely by existing people have certain rights Maybe that's just me, but that's way too abstract for me. Have planets and stars always had certain rights purely by existing as well? > and society chooses which ones should be protected Well in that case you could make the case that every single person has every single right anyone could possibly have and the society chooses a subset of these rights as actual laws. I guess this is a way to eat your cake and have it, too, since it makes the difference between my and your view unobservable.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - kube-system 5y ago
      The constitution grants legal rights on the basis that natural rights already exist. You are right that people have rights without the constitution. Other people are right that the constitution grants rights. The confusion is that you are both talking about different types of rights.