The US Constitution grants us rights, correct? Then what, if anything, grants us privileges?
204727
Common misunderstanding, but laudable that you are asking, because it is theonly way we can become self-governed again. \n\nThe U.S. Constitution only grants one right. The fist 10 Amendments, added twelve years later, are called "The Bill of Rights," and are probably what you're thinking of.\n\nA "right" is something granted by law, something you can take to court and win. A privilege, can be taken away at any time at the whim of those few in power.\n\nLike someone in the military has almost no rights. But they have lots of privileges. An underage child has no rights, but has privileges. \n\nThe one test to find out if you have a right, e.g., the case of a child, is to find out if this person or entity can sue or be sued. If not, then there are no rights. \n\nRead the Constitution on my web site listed below, then read the explanation of the Amendments. You'll find that the one main reason for the Constitution was to set up a Federal Gov't, and at the same time, limit their power. Their greatest fear was that the Fed would become more powerful than a State, and rule the States from afar and dictate their laws, and invade our states at will. But of course, that has happened anyway hasn't it, because nobody is policing the police (the Fed) or enforcing the Constitution.\n\nThey tried to weaken the Fed by breaking them up into 3 branches; Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. If those three ever came together, we would have a totalitarian dictatorship, similar to a King ruling us dictating our every move. For examply, only Congress can pass new law, which represents each State. But the President (Executive) decrees new laws every day by executive order. The courts (Judicial Branch) interpret and change laws every day. So the inevitible has happened; all three branches are acting as one, and nobody seems to care.
414366
Yes, this amendment states that everyone has the right to a trial by jury. this process insures that everyone will recieve a fair trial that will lead then to the correct punishment. If not for this amendment, many historical cases could have had different outcomes that would alter the way we live in the present.
404504
The constitution provides a legal foundation for our\nlaws and our cival discourse. Disputes and questions regarding\nall manner of civall and criminal conduct have a final\narbiture with the Supreme court and the federal and state courts.
622374
Let me put it to you this way:\n\nThere is such a thing as America, and there is such a thing as an American citizen and their rights, you may not deny that.\n\nWE WILL NOT SUSPEND OUR CONTSTITUTION TO ACCOMODATE YOU OR BEND TO THE WILL OF ANOTHER COUNTRY.\n\nThank You.
494762
The Constitution.  It is the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The first 10 Amendments are referred to as the Bill of Rights.
557203
The Constitution of the United States of America, states that the people have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  It is a right added to be a stop gap measure for the people to protect themselves from a corrupt government intrusion.  Due to the fact that at the time the King of England forced the colony folks to house the British soldiers, and were not able to stop them from unreasonable searches or siezures.  Our founding fathers determined that this was a violation of man's basic freedoms.  Not to be usurped by wicked men.  The right to be free from harm or intrusion was based on the unalienable rights granted to mankind by God.  This was codified in the Constitution for our protection and for our benefit.  It is up to us who live by it, to make sure it stays in force!  When we choose to allow it to be usurped we have effctively let the documnent become nothing but words on paper that are useless.
637523
None in reality.!!\n\nWhy! Black Gold!!\n\n\n"We hold dear what our Declaration of Independence says, that all have got uninalienable rights, endowed by a Creator."\nSource: The New York Times, "Reporter's Notebook; Skipping Borders, Tripping Diction," David E. Sanger, May 28, 2002 \n\n\nI told you he never read it!
531091
(Ah, sounds like a homework question)\nIt depends upon how literal you want to go with "not listed in the Constitution."\nThe biggest one is the right to privacy, which includes right to contraception (Griswold v. Conn.) the right to an abortion (Roe v. Wade) and the right to consensual private sexual conduct (Lawrence v. Texas). \nNext, I'd say rights that "spring" from dileaneated rights.  For example, the right to have "Miranda" warnings springs from the 5th Amendment Self-Incrimination Clause.  The right to flag burning and other "expressive conduct" springs from the First Amendment Free Speech Clause.  The right to be free from state sponsored segregation springs from the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.  The right to (basically) unlimited spending of money for political speech springs from the First Amendment Free Speech clause.  \nIn all of those in the above paragraph, there is nothing in the constitution about getting Miranda warnings, about schools not being segregated, or about getting to spend as much money as you want, but the Courts have interpreted concrete clauses in the constitution as providing those rights.\n\nPowers not in the Constitution that are returned to the States / People:\nPower to regulate real property and conveyances thereof (almost exclusively state controlled)\nPower to enact generally applicable criminal laws (almost all criminal law is state law)\nPower to decide how Presidential Electors are chosen.\nPower of localities to regulate business licenses and zoning laws (not in contradition with federal civil rights)\n\nJust a few.
117413
The constitution was intended to restrict the actions of the federal goernment.  Any powers not given to the federal government nor denied to the states shall be invested in the states or in the people.\n\nThe constitution limits federal power to needs of the nation as a whole.  Laws which directly affect the lives of individuals are supposed to be left to the states.  That would include abortion.
125673
The Constitution does not mention abortion. It does, however, guarantee you the right to privacy.
32576
since the constitution and the Bill of rights does not come right out, in black and white, and say certin things are legal or illigal, it is our job to make sure the courts have it right.  So I have no problem testing the supreme court.
25846
Of course our rights stem from the Bill of Rights which amended the Constitution.  However, and more importantly, our rights are preserved by the "Rule of Law" and that depends on our Court system being independent of Congress or the Whitehouse.  Many countries had constitutions, lawyers and elections but lost their freedom when they lost the rule of law.  Nazi Germany is a good example.  I know of investors who shy away from investments in Russia today because they doubt that the rule of law there will protect their rights.  perhaps things will change for the better.
1849
A child is a citizen of whatever country its parents are citizens of.\n\nIf the USA's anachronistic grant of citizenship to anyone born on US soil weren't an actual part of the Constitution, that grant would have been changed long ago.
439241
This is the insanity of giving anyone power.  The American Constitution is meant to restrain the power of the state and the government by protecting individual Rights as sacrosanct and inviolate.  However, too often the government and state have colluded to convince and coerce people into surrendering a Right for a government permit or state-given benefit in the name of greater "security".  This is a form of fraud, and is clearly taking advantage of a electorate that is too stupid, thanks to continually dumbed-down ciriculums, to know better.  There's a sucker born every minute, which means there are billions of them on the face of this globe.
66347
Questions like or similar to this one have appeared here several times.  Other than those who ask such questions to simply get a response to see what others think, often they come up (in my opinion) because the asker (present company excepted, of course) due to a lack of education as to what the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights actually are and mean.\n\nFirst of all, the Constitution of the United States was created to create a general government (in this case a federal government) and the relationship between that general government and the ratifying States and their citizens, as ratified by the several States as representing the citizens of each of their States.   \n\nIt is not a document of laws nor does it grant any rights.  It is a structure which acts as a foundation from which laws are to be enacted which are necessary (and proper) to carry through the powers delegated to the federal government created by those delegated powers.\n\nThe Bill of Rights is the result of an agreement made during the Constitutional Convention to gather the votes necessary to propose the draft of the Constitution to the then standing Congress under the Articles of Confederation.  It first came up (by George Mason) during the discussion concerning trial by jury.  \n\nAt that time 8 of the 13 State Constitutions (the States had real Constitutions prior to the Constitution of the United States) had forms of a Bill of Rights and George Mason had written Virginia’s in 1776.\n\nSubsequent to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States and during the first session of the Congress, James Madison was given the task of drafting this Bill of Rights and in this effort he used the Virginia Bill of Rights as a guide.  His work resulted in a Bill of Rights with 12 articles being proposed to the several State legislatures.  Only 10 were ratified at that time.\n\nBills of Rights are not new to our historical roots, certainly Magna Carta can be considered a form of a Bill of Rights and there were others through the years such as “The Petition of Right [1628] and “The Bill of rights” [1689].\n\nEven so, the United States Bill of Rights is less a listing of individual rights than it is selected controls on the federal government.  This is because of the structure of the Bill of rights, that is, the first 8 ratified articles of the Bill of Rights are exclusionary articles in that they exclude the federal government from doing specific acts.  The final two articles are declarations of basic truths and are therefore controlling of the federal government.\n\nAll of this structure of government can reasonably be considered as being a natural evolution of our heritage of the Common Law easily traceable to the Great Charter of 1215 (Magna Carta) and, in my opinion, founded in the developing Common Law during the preceding 2,000 years.\n\nDuring the intervening years since 1791 (year of the ratification of the Bill of Rights) 27 Amendments have been made to the Constitution of the United States changing that structure.\n\nLegislative statutes are enacted within this structure and the constitutional structures of the various States.  Those enacted laws, in the style of our common law, evolve and produce new laws, as well as new judicial interpretations.  In that sense we do, and yet we don’t, live within what occurred 215 years ago.  \n\nIn such a system, how can it be out of date?  It has lasted so long with relatively little change because its roots and its intent and its content are focused on individual rights.
180605
Smokers' Rights are in the US Constitution!  In the same paragraph as the Right To Privacy.  Look it up!
454352
Bill of Rights, First Amendment.