A power that is given to all citizens that cannot legally be taken away is called a right?
952243
A clear distinction must be made between human rights and civil rights. \n\nHuman rights are inherent and inalienable, and are defined by universal documents (these rights, however, are often mainly given lip service, particularly by dictatorial regimes).\n\nCivil rights are those rights citizens of a nation have as a matter of constitutional guarantee. They cannot be violated by the authorities, and depending on the particular right, by other people. Civil rights can be abridged or even abrogated following conviction of a crime, however. \n\nNations beset with instability grant fewer civil rights to its citizens than stable, established democracies such as  in the US or UK.
624775
No they do not have the right. Every nation should have the right to sovereignty, as long as they do no threaten other nations or commit heinous crimes against their entire populace.
913778
The right of self-determination.
579573
Being a citizen means you are not a temporary immigrant, visitor, or slave, and you have all the rights therein.
747030
Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself.
62056
"Collect taxes" is probably the answer you're looking for, but in fact "E) All of the above" is the correct answer. People have rights; Congress receives authority from the People.
309109
Freedom is impossible except you live on a deserted island. All governments keep adding on laws for the "good of the people" until they collapse.
469243
I believe that our Bill of Right defines all of this you are asking about. Now on the other hand if your engaged in any type of criminal behavior, all of that is out the window.
173141
you have every right to break the law. On the other hand government has evrey right to punish you.
161301
Freedom: The ability to do anything that you want (good or bad)\n\nIn fact and in the intent of laws: The most relative definition is that our freedom stops where the freedom of another individual begins.
386861
Admendment 9\nOther Rights of the People (1791)\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nThe rightsof the people are not limited to thoses stated in the Constitution.\n\nUsing the quote you put in, it's the\n\nAdmendment 10 Powers of the States and the People (1791)\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.\n\nPowers not granted to the United States government and not forbidden to the states are left to the states or to the people.
142023
Governments have specific rights.  Most of the Bill of Rights ammendments dealt with individual rights.  To allow the specific government rights (eminent domain comes to mind right away) the 10th ammendment was passed ot allow state governments to exercise their powers
997319
there are inalienable human rights, agreed upon in the Geneva Conventions, that apply to all humans.  Though they may ultimately be executed, they are afforded the right to due process.  This prevents using some label like "terrorist" to rob just about anyone of their rights and have them killed.  Like in the days of the Salem witch hunts- all you had to do was call someone out as a witch, and they lost all their rights and were burned at the stake.  If terrorists had no rights by law, then if the system wanted someone destroyed, all you have to do is accuse them or frame them as terrorists and you've got them canned.  At least with due process, the system would have to really spend a heck of a lot of time and effort on pushing a falsely-accused person through the system.  It's always doable, but with due process, framing someone is harder to pull off and there are a lot more chances for the plot to unfold.\n\nWhen people defend human rights rollbacks by saying "if you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear!" it's not true.  We're founded on the principle that we have the right to overthrow our government if it fails to work for the people (Declaration of Independance) and if due process is taken away, we lose that power because the government can annhialate anyone they perceive as a threat.  I hate to sound like some sort of extremist or anarchist, which I'm not, but let's not forget our founding documents and what concepts this country was built on.
1184763
Without law I would have the right to kick your *ss. How would you like that freedom?
1115591
Nobody can have absolute rights and freedoms even in the most democratic society.  That's because people's rights and freedoms often conflict with each other, and you need to have respect for everyone's rights and freedoms equally.\n\nIf you are hungry and you have a right to eat, this doesn't mean that you can rob a food store and eat all you want because such action would violate another person's right to have private property.  And it's like that with all rights and freedoms.  \n\nYour rights and freedoms are not restricted as long as you don't interfere with other people's rights and freedoms.  But when there is a conflict between rights and freedoms of two or more individuals, then you need laws which specify what you can and cannot do.
749184
The power to act with a specif law
393391
Unfortunately the humans are victims of humans.\nOne human has acquired the responsibility to allow or not the rights to another.\nDefinition varies from place to place, citizen to citizen.\nThese are important to those who want their rights but does not matter for those who haves to respect these rights.