Comment by DrScientist
6 years ago
Hmm.. reread the full thread again. I think the mistake here is my lack of clarity about the word 'rights'.
My point was there is no such thing as an inalienable rights. 'Rights' are a negotiated social contract - so it makes no sense to say they are not negotiable!
>negotiated social contract
the bill of rights was ratified December 15, 1791. in what sense is it still being negotiated?
That's basically what the supreme court does. The words remain the same, but the interpretation makes all the difference. Even strict constructionists have to negotiate the acceptance of their view.
Excellent point.
I'm not an expert on the US system, but I believe ratification implies some sort of agreement.
I also believe there is an amendment process - ie it has changed over time and each of those changes is through some sort of democratic process...
So the debate and negotiation still goes on, even if it changes slowly.