[JamesP81]

You are just arguing semantics.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing exactly what the Forefathers did.

How would you define a right?

Rights do not need to be defined. They either exist or they do not. Among those that do exist are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Also included are rights detailed in the Bill of Rights. And as the 9th Amendment clearly informs us The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, there are rights retained by the people in addition to those listed in the Constitution.

This is not semantics. It's the principles upon which our great nation was founded. I consider myself a social conservative and tend to vote for social conservatives, but to be blunt, the sooner the generally politically and historically naive social con movement learns the basis of our system, the better we'll be. The same can be said for RINOs and Dims as well.

[psychoknk]

Rights do not need to be defined. They either exist or they do not.

So how do I determine if a right exists or doesn't? What is the litmus test? You can't say, "You just know." That won't fly in court.