3 ms·

The term "Constitutional right" refers to legal rights derived from and related to the Constitution. Hence, they're termed Constitutional. If you disagree with

by aric 12y ago

The term "Constitutional right" refers to legal rights derived from and related to the Constitution. Hence, they're termed Constitutional. If you disagree with this term, you disagree with thousands upon thousands of other rights that are equally considered Constitutional and part of Constitutional law. Most Constitutional rights are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Instead they're derived from interpretation of the succinct language used in the Constitution. This topic is rooted in Constitutional rights. I respect that the word 'primary' could be misinterpreted. And it's subjective. Personally, I don't know where I'd place this issue on a list of humanitarian rights if I had to rank. Most issues related to speech and freedom from tyranny, and its numerous forms of persecution, are issues that I usually deem 'primary.'

DannyBee 12y ago
"The term "Constitutional right" refers to legal rights derived from and related to the Constitution. Hence, they're termed Constitutional." Dude, you said "primary constitutional right", not "constitutional right". They are not the same. Additionally, you are seriously confusing primary constitutional rights and rights and rules whose basis is implementation of constitutional rights. They are not the same as constitutional rights either. For example, the exclusionary rule (that excludes evidence obtained through police violate your constitutional rights) is not a constitutional right, it is a judicial rule grounded in sane implementation of the 4th amendment. In any case, this is not worth arguing any more for me.
- aric 12y ago
  Like I said, I respect that using the word "primary" is contentious. If that's your only true point, then there's little argument to be had other than a subjective nature of what I consider primary. If your argument extends past that, about the term "Constitutional right" itself, then, again, you'd be wrong to imply that "rights and rules" derived from Constitutional interpretation aren't Constitutional rights. That's not judicial wordplay. It's common language. Example: ---------------------------- "What to Say to Invoke the Right to Silence The new Supreme Court decision raises weighty questions, such as whether it’s reasonable to place the onus of asserting constitutional rights on everyday people, most of whom have never cracked the spine of a criminal procedure or constitutional law book. The more practical question is what, exactly, an out-of-custody person must say to inquisitive police officers in order to claim the right to silence. To be safe, they should make clear that they are invoking their Fifth Amendment right to silence and have nothing further to say. That way their subsequent failure to answer any questions cannot be mentioned at trial." by: Micah Schwartzbach http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-right-silence.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-... ---------------------------- This writer uses the term "constitutional rights" in context. He later says, "...invoking their Fifth Amendment right to silence..." (i.e. "... invoking their Constitutional right to silence...") in direct context. I won't dig up numerous other examples from lawyers who write about this subject in-depth. Court rulings continually change the landscape of rights. They change what's inherently so-called "Constitutional" at any point in time. Many issues become topics of people's Constitutional rights once they're challenged on the basis of the Constitution. This is irrespective of a changing landscape's rulings at any point in time. Outside of that language, we may agree more than we disagree.

by aric 12y ago

DannyBee 12y ago

"The term "Constitutional right" refers to legal rights derived from and related to the Constitution. Hence, they're termed Constitutional." Dude, you said "primary constitutional right", not "constitutional right". They are not the same. Additionally, you are seriously confusing primary constitutional rights and rights and rules whose basis is implementation of constitutional rights. They are not the same as constitutional rights either. For example, the exclusionary rule (that excludes evidence obtained through police violate your constitutional rights) is not a constitutional right, it is a judicial rule grounded in sane implementation of the 4th amendment. In any case, this is not worth arguing any more for me.

aric 12y ago
Like I said, I respect that using the word "primary" is contentious. If that's your only true point, then there's little argument to be had other than a subjective nature of what I consider primary. If your argument extends past that, about the term "Constitutional right" itself, then, again, you'd be wrong to imply that "rights and rules" derived from Constitutional interpretation aren't Constitutional rights. That's not judicial wordplay. It's common language. Example: ---------------------------- "What to Say to Invoke the Right to Silence The new Supreme Court decision raises weighty questions, such as whether it’s reasonable to place the onus of asserting constitutional rights on everyday people, most of whom have never cracked the spine of a criminal procedure or constitutional law book. The more practical question is what, exactly, an out-of-custody person must say to inquisitive police officers in order to claim the right to silence. To be safe, they should make clear that they are invoking their Fifth Amendment right to silence and have nothing further to say. That way their subsequent failure to answer any questions cannot be mentioned at trial." by: Micah Schwartzbach http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-right-silence.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-... ---------------------------- This writer uses the term "constitutional rights" in context. He later says, "...invoking their Fifth Amendment right to silence..." (i.e. "... invoking their Constitutional right to silence...") in direct context. I won't dig up numerous other examples from lawyers who write about this subject in-depth. Court rulings continually change the landscape of rights. They change what's inherently so-called "Constitutional" at any point in time. Many issues become topics of people's Constitutional rights once they're challenged on the basis of the Constitution. This is irrespective of a changing landscape's rulings at any point in time. Outside of that language, we may agree more than we disagree.