That may have been more true at the time of the ratification but now it's just wrong.
Pretty much every liberal democracy's constitution or charter contains both negative and positive rights. Even ours.
None of this changes my point that a right that can't be enforced isn't much of a right.
Like hell it is.
Pretty much every liberal democracy's constitution or charter contains both negative and positive rights. Even ours.
Your ignorance is tedious. What you call "liberal democracies" are parliamentary systems, their peoples are subjects, and they have only privileges, no true preexisting rights. In America, all rights are preexisting, all privileges are granted by the government.
None of this changes my point that a right that can't be enforced isn't much of a right.
That's not a "point," it's an irrelevancy that has nothing to do with the nature of rights versus privileges, unless you're actually claiming that the government will lawfully attack the rights of the people. In which case you're calling the government criminal.
In short, you just want to argue about a topic you don't understand at all. I have no interest in wasting my time with you any further. Goodbye.