No, there aren't. That was my point. Most of the gnarly legal questions we face deal with one person's rights colliding with someone else's. Any right, taken to the Nth degree, will eventually infringe on the rights of someone else.
You have the right to speak, but not to slander. You have the right to bear arms, but not in my house without my permission. You have the rights to life, liberty and property, but can be deprived of any or all of those by due process of law. You have the right to remain silent, but even that is conditional. Ask Judith Miller.
Free exercise of religion is an absolute right. Human sacrifice is not.
Then free exercise is not absolute. If you can't practice human sacrifice, and your faith calls for it, your exercise has limits. Limited is not absolute.
Whats your def of absolute right? Example?
Definition: An absolute right is one that can never be legitimately denied or restricted under any circumstances whatsoever. I'm a reasonably well-educated guy, and I'd like to believe that I understand the word "absolute."
Example: Conscience. That's the only absolute right I can think of. You have the absolute right to hold any religious or political opinion, because your thoughts can't infringe on anyone else's rights. There are limits on how you can talk about or act on those thoughts, which makes all other rights less than absolute.
That's not a definition folks, other than socialists, accept. The Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers fron the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Govm't becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter, or abolish it, and to institute a new Govm't, laying the foundations on such principles, and organizing it's powers on such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Those unalienable rights are natural rights. They are absolute rights. Yet, the ones who created this doc did not hold them to be unalienable in the case of those engaged in rights violations, which were and are refered to as crimes. If the only unalienable right was conscience, life and liberty would not be included in the DoI and in fact the doc could never have been penned. The king, after all, could not deny them the right. The king did unjustly deny exercise of the right, which is the sovereignty of will, evidenced by liberty and the pursuit of happiness present by virtue of the absolute right to life. Simple right is simply a minor right contained within an encompassing absolute, or natural right.
"You have the rights to life, liberty and property, but can be deprived of any or all of those by due process of law."
Note that they are still unalienable rights, the absolute natural rights the founders and other folks had and have in mind.
Human sacrifice is no more a right, than health care is. Regardless of any claim of derivation from a real right, the claim is empty, because of it's fundamental violation of the rights of others. Similarly, their is no right to free stuff and services, nor is their an entitlement to those. Entitlement is always to right, regardless of what the con man says.
" Most of the gnarly legal questions we face deal with one person's rights colliding with someone else's."
In most cases one, or more of the rights are not rights. See the human sacrife example, or health care with other people's time, effort and resources. The safety laws are the same. The right is to choose your own safety measures taken. The govm't does not have the right to impose them, for your own good, or to impose them in conjunction with some form of heath care and claim it's to reduce costs. The sovereignty of will of some are necessarily violated unjustly by such schemes.