First of all, the Constitution is NOT the definer of rights. That's why there is a 9th Amendment.
Second of all, how can rights not be reciprocal? It is self-evident, as described in the Declaration of Independence.
Under what bizarre theory of human rights can it be that you have to recognize my rights, but I don't have to recognize yours? Isn't that the idea behind criminal punishment? You kill someone, or steal from them, etc., you lose your right to freedom because you have failed to recognize the rights of others.
You have the right of self defense because of the principle of rights being reciprocal.
You may say: "Well, if you steal from me, I don't have the right to steal from you." But just because under law the people have delegated certain enforcement powers to the government, that doesn't mean that rights aren't reciprocal, unless you believe, as does the idiot lawyer Christ Cuomo, that rights come from man, not God.
If Cuomo is right, you only have whatever "rights" the government grants you, which is to say that there is no such thing as a right at all.
How can you argue, in good faith, that I have the right to stop you from practicing your religion, but that you are obligated to respect my right to practice mine? How can you expect to be taken at all seriously if you make such an argument.
Of course rights are reciprocal. How can they not be?
Rights as enumerated in the Constitution are equal to all. No exception.
When a felon commits a crime, he forfeits some rights. When a person is not an adult or somehow debilitated, rights might be abbreviated or restricted.
But all rights and laws apply to all.
Rights as enumerated in the Constitution are equal to all. No exception.
When a felon commits a crime, he forfeits some rights. When a person is not an adult or somehow debilitated, rights might be abbreviated or restricted.
But all rights and laws apply to all.