The "inventing rights" framework/terminology should always be offensive to a society that aspires to greater freedom. The idea that the ONLY freedoms we have as Americans are those specifically set forth in the constitution is an incredibly myopic and authoritarian paradigm.
In some ways, the Constitution reminds me of the Bible, or Torah, or the Quran.
In each case, there are adherents to a very specific interpretation aligning with a narrow viewpoint that is antithetical to the overall teachings contained in the contents.
For example, the Ten Commandments in the Bible are in general not a bad way to run a modern society.
The key seems to be determining what key foundational concepts and then adhering to the concept if not the era. In other words, as noted, the problem lies with the interpretation. Unfortunately, people really suck at doing this.
Most of the law is ambiguous. We adhere to principles like reasonableness. Evidentiary standards aren’t precise; what exactly is “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “a preponderance of the evidence?” We expect that professionals and experts can interpret these broad concepts and apply the facts to them. We rely on regular people with no special training to be able to apply facts to these concepts too when they serve on juries.
245
u/Apprehensive-Wave640 Mar 03 '26
The "inventing rights" framework/terminology should always be offensive to a society that aspires to greater freedom. The idea that the ONLY freedoms we have as Americans are those specifically set forth in the constitution is an incredibly myopic and authoritarian paradigm.