I agree with you, as will most of the FReepers, but the issue with your statement is that Senator Obama, along with most liberals, believes that those are “negative” rights! And they want a new constitution that says what the government must do to you..uh...er..I mean FOR you! Freudian slip of the fingers!
This is the inherent problem with every new law and idea that comes out of EVERY politician. They write laws to make a stringent point, but laws cannot cover every single possible outcome and therefore they create the very thing they are trying to eliminate: loopholes! I used to think this was accidental, but it is way to common today and therefore MUST be intentional.
Our “new” constitution would be fraught with more loopholes, double-meaning, backwards junk than what the worst liberal leaning nut-job can decipher and congeal from our current one! God help us all, we are going to need all the over site we can get!
Rights that limit government are negative rights. I read that the term “negative rights” was misconstrued by Rush. Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that Dems see “negative rights” as a bad thing. :-(