4 votes

Semantics: Constitutional Guarantees or Constitutional Rights

Hey, Guys,

For two days I've been thinking about the phrases constitutional guarantees and constitutional rights. I asked myself, Do they differ from each other and if they do, what are those differences?

Does anyone here think there's a difference between the two phrases? Is one phrase better than the other? I can't help but think there is a difference and that one is better than the other.

When I think constitutional rights, I comprehend the constitution issues rights, that is, the human receives his rights from the US constitution. When I hear constitutional guarantees, I comprehend the US constitution is guaranteeing something. That something of course is rights, which are natural, known as natural rights. Because they are natural, they existed and exist before what is manmade regardless of its treatment to them. What's manmade here of course is the US constitution.

This sequence makes these rights supersede the constitution and after this relationship is acknowledged, the constitution is applied to them. This application, from what I can see, always is (or should be) beneath these rights, always is (or should be) in support of them.

If the constitution wasn't in support of those rights, it would be equal to them or override them and could abruptly or eventually wipe them out. But because natural rights' authority is above the constitution's, the only sense I can make from the creation of the constitution is it must have been based on them and that its continuance is evidence it is and must be in harmony with those rights or else the constitution would be in opposition of them and irrelevant instantly afterward then in wait for its resuscitation.

If this basis is true, wouldn't using the phrase constitutional gaurantees (the inclusive description, that 1 comes before and includes 2) instead of constitutional rights (the exclusive description, that 2 comes before 1 and doesn't acknowledge 1) be:

1/2) better in educating people about freedom?
2/2) correct?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Declaration of Independence thusly states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

The rights do not come from government, but governments are created to secure (guarantee or protect) said rights.

Constitutionally protected rights may be the more accurate phrase, but it's a mouthful.

Constitutionally protected

Constitutionally protected rights may be the more accurate phrase, but it's a mouthful.

I like your phrase constitutional protected rights. I would say your phrase is interchangeable with constiutional guarantees. Also, because you recommended it, would I be correct to assume you think constitutional guarantees is better to use than constitutional rights?

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

would I be correct to assume you think constitutional guarantees

would I be correct to assume you think constitutional guarantees is better to use than constitutional rights?

Yes, although I hesitate to use "Constitutional guarantees" because some argue that the Constitution "guarantees" them material things, e.g. a living wage, health care, and other assorted goodies that are not rights.

No right to things

Otherwise, an obligation is imposed on others to provide those thing. Rights, to be right, must never contradict each other. We have right to act on our own behalf, but not to any specific result.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

To your question, yes. About

To your question, yes.

About your point that some people argue guarantees mean material things, I'd recommend just continue teaching how constitutional rights is taught: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But I would delete "pusuit of" because it's right, as opposed to it's wrong, to be in happiness rather than in sadness. At that point, achieving happiness would be up to the individual to do. In this sense, I take the word "rights" literally, meaning things that are right, not wrong, as in it's

RIGHT to live
RIGHT to have freedom
and
RIGHT to be happy

Those states are things right, or rights. So, teaching would go on as usual but with the exchange of phrase constitutional rights for constitutional gaurantees. Interesting. Just as I typed the sentence two sentences ago, I looked at "RIGHT to be happy" above and I thought, Nothing can gaurantee happiness and that if nothing can gaurantee it, "constitutional rights" according to my brief explanation above applies to right to be happy or in the pursuit of happiness, and "constitutional gaurantees" wouldn't apply. Hmmm. I'm going to have to think about this issue more. lol

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton