4 ms·

The Constitution doesn't say who they're held by; the only reference to "right" in there is actually a place that calls out my error: it does grant one right, w

The Constitution doesn't say who they're held by; the only reference to "right" in there is actually a place that calls out my error: it does grant one right, which is copyright/patent. Oddly. A document that might indicate who rights were considered to be held by is the Declaration of Independence, but it says "all men", which I would take to mean every human. Obviously not all the signers viewed it that way, given that slavery was still permitted. Since the US didn't exist at the time when these rights were already viewed as being operative, though, I think we can safely exclude that they were intended to apply only to US citizens. Edit: spelling.

rayiner 14y ago
The Declaration of Independence has no legal significance. It is just a letter, and the prose is intended to be poetic (to justify violent revolution) rather than functional. Your comment about the U.S. not existing shows a misunderstanding of the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution is essentially a contract outlining the delegation of powers to the federal government from the sovereign state governments. The rights therein were viewed as already operative, but not because they were viewed as rights intrinsic to humanity, but because they were rights already enjoyed by citizens of the several states. When the Constitution talks about "people" it is not talking about "people in general." It is talking about "the people"--the body politic of the several states which combined to form the union. Those are the people who have rights under the Constitution.
- randallsquared 14y ago
  > The Declaration of Independence has no legal significance. No disagreement there; I only brought it up as something that "might indicate" what the framers were thinking when they failed to grant any rights in the Constitution. On the rest, I'm no constitutional scholar; you may well be right on how this was viewed then.

rayiner 14y ago

The Declaration of Independence has no legal significance. It is just a letter, and the prose is intended to be poetic (to justify violent revolution) rather than functional. Your comment about the U.S. not existing shows a misunderstanding of the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution is essentially a contract outlining the delegation of powers to the federal government from the sovereign state governments. The rights therein were viewed as already operative, but not because they were viewed as rights intrinsic to humanity, but because they were rights already enjoyed by citizens of the several states. When the Constitution talks about "people" it is not talking about "people in general." It is talking about "the people"--the body politic of the several states which combined to form the union. Those are the people who have rights under the Constitution.

randallsquared 14y ago
> The Declaration of Independence has no legal significance. No disagreement there; I only brought it up as something that "might indicate" what the framers were thinking when they failed to grant any rights in the Constitution. On the rest, I'm no constitutional scholar; you may well be right on how this was viewed then.