I believe a right usually obliges the government not only to not violate the people’s legal right itself, but to affirm the right and oppose anyone else who is interfering with the exercise of the right.
Unless it is specifically worded to limit its scope, for instance “Congress shall make no law…”.
Think of how vacuous a right of the people is when the government doesn’t defend it, in word and deeds, for instance the right to ownership of property.
Sometimes you do what has to be done, and no jury would convict you, but you are on slippery ground.
> I believe a right usually obliges the government not only to not violate the people’s legal right itself, but to affirm the right and oppose anyone else who is interfering with the exercise of the right. <
That sounds reasonable, but it’s actually not so. Here is an example.
Let’s say that I work for Ford. I’m an at-will employee (no contract). And I don’t like Kamala Harris.
I’m very good at my job. But I also say bad things about Harris while at the office. And I use vulgar terms. No government agency can penalize me for saying those bad things about Harris. I have the right of free speech under the 1A.
But Ford most certainly can tell me to stop, or even fire me. And the Constitution does not protect me, as the 1A does not apply to Ford. And nor should it. Ford does not have to put up with my office politicking, or my vulgar language.