[Huck]

That is a distinguishing feature of The Federalist, a party platform replete with promises of what the party would not do. It is strange reading, when compared to modern political pledges, in its negative assurances.

Incidentally, I believe when Obama referred to "negative" rights, he was using the term in the same way "negative" assurances is used here. He wasn't saying "negative", meaning bad. He was simply saying they are rights defining what the gubmint can't do. The term "negative" rights is entirely appropriate. People like Limbaugh sound like dopes when they fail to grasp this usage.

That said, negative rights are fine. I like them better than positive rights when it comes to gubmint. But the term is correct.

[ForGod'sSake]

I believe when Obama referred to "negative" rights, he was using the term in the same way "negative" assurances is used here. He wasn't saying "negative", meaning bad. He was simply saying they are rights defining what the gubmint can't do. The term "negative" rights is entirely appropriate.

I must have missed this seemingly incongruent notion of his along the way, could you point me to link or something?