[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

The two views cannot be reconciled. Normal political means are useless in resolving any impasse between Left and Right.

[Vendome]

The Constitution, from the statist point of view, is a charter of negative rights, severely limiting what the government can do and what it cannot do to you.

Correctly viewed however, it is a charter of personal rights, given to us by and which no government has the r8ght to impair, limit or license.

[Jacquerie]

The Soviet Union had a written constitution that guaranteed much of what we used to enjoy under the US constitution.

Tyranny existed alongside the Soviet constitution.

I ask any Freeper to explain how, through elections alone, we can “reclaim” (Ted Cruz term) our constitution.

[Talisker]

Excellent article except for one thing - there are no positive rights, only government granted privileges. Rights are innate. Privileges are given, and may be taken away. Confusing those two concepts by using the word “rights” for both is THE most damaging tactic ever decided for hiding this treachery in plain sight.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Those on the Left – "progressives," liberals, socialists, and so forth – absolutely hate this view of individual rights. In its place, they prefer a "positive" view of rights as being that which the government or society can compel the individual to do, or to provide for others.

The minute you can be compelled to provide for anyone who is not your minor child, you become that person's slave.

[BenLurkin]

The terminology employed here is so muddled as to be detrimental to the discussion.

Government “entitlements” are not rights — so there is no point referring to them as anything other than “entitlements”. The Constitution does not empower the government to create the many entitlements which it has wrongfully created.

And the rights of you and I under natural law are not “negative rights”. They are natural rights. The Constitution does not add to nor detract from those rights — it limits the government’s scope, power and authority and makes a passing reference to those rights which exist absent any reference to the Constitution — and which are indeed inalienable.

[skeeter]

The first time I heard the term ‘positive charter of rights’ was from the runt tyrant currently inhabiting the white house.

[zeestephen]

Thanks for posting.

That’s an excellent summary.

I often find myself struggling in discussions about “Constitutionalism.”

This post is really helpful.