Please forgive the necessary crushing together of words that I know very well should be separated.
2006-07-13 01:55:57 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I intentionally referred to the Articles of good governance in the US Constitution, not the Bill of Rights which are the 1st 10 amendments to the Constitution. Looking over the answers to my Q, I could not help notice in many answers there is a confusion over the word "rights" which is due to its ambiguous senses of "right" as the power and authority to do specified things and "rights" as freedoms (we as individuals have) to do things without interference by others including our government.
I will now pick the best of the 6 Q's posted which shows the least amount of confusion between the senses of the word rights. file TWH 07252006
2006-07-25 06:32:16 · update #1
I see them as limits and duties of the government... (Rights?!) "The Government shall not..."
The US Constitution was written by men who had had bad experiences with an overbearing government, with political leaders who claimed rights where there were none, and they didn't want that to happen again. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to limit the government's power.
My political soap box-
A government's purpose is to protect the people, maintain order. Those in positions of authority are obligated to serve those they govern. I think this is what the Founding Fathers wanted to create when they wrote the Constitution.
2006-07-13 02:16:45 · answer #1 · answered by Yoda's Duck 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It defines the duties of the government. The ammendmendments, especially the first ten, are focused more on the rights of the people which the originators felt the government should not have the authority to interfere with these rights. Over the years interpretation has led to many people feeling they can do whatever they want to to. I do not believe this was the intent of the drafters of the constitution, but I am sure many people will disagree with me as is their right.
2006-07-13 09:17:42 · answer #2 · answered by Don M 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I read them as both, depending on which of the different branches of government you're in. The Constitution is stating that this is what each branch is permitted to do, no more. If one branch of government is given a duty, it has the right to perform that duty without interference by the other branches. For example, the Supreme Court is given the duty of interpreting the Constitution. No matter how they try, the Legislative and Administrative branches do not have the right to try to do it themselves.
2006-07-13 09:04:58 · answer #3 · answered by cross-stitch kelly 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither. I see it as defining the legitimate "powers" of government. The Bill of Rights defines the rights of the People, the Constitution limits to power of their elected officials to stifle those rights.
2006-07-13 10:01:21 · answer #4 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They spell out the limits of the government and they way in which it functions. Not that it matters as it has been ignored for about a hundred years now.
2006-07-13 09:06:48 · answer #5 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
limits of government which are often over looked and twisted to become more than ever intended.
2006-07-13 08:59:05 · answer #6 · answered by jegreencreek 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋