The Layman’s Guide to the Bill of Rights

An accurate understanding of the Bill of Rights has been severely lacking lately. The sheer number of people affected by this deprivation is tragic enough, but it is especially adverse when higher members of the political class are among the most ignorant of this document’s most elementary concepts.

The word “rights” is flippantly and frequently misused by those on both sides of the aisle to invoke a nebulous moral claim to whatever politicians happen to be proposing. It is a cheap device that bolsters dubious, illogical and even illegal proposals.

But the word “right” is not connotative of gifts that dear Uncle Sam doles out to his good little children. The rights circumscribed by the Bill of Rights were meant for a very specific purpose: to safeguard the people against potential abuses by their government.

Far from being claims to whatever we may want (pay increases, job security, healthcare, etc.), the Bill of Rights serves as legal protection for inherent individual rights and restricts government trespasses and abuses. They are not rights to be granted so much as they are rights to be protected.

The best way to understand the difference is to evaluate the document in its true form, that is, as a legal document. Many misconceptions can be cleared up with the simple distinction between positive and negative rights. The Bill of Rights consists of a series of negative rights, which does not imply mean or bad, but rather acts which are restricted. In that sense, it is a series of prohibitions. The opposite, positive rights, refers to something which must be provided, that is, an obligation. Just read the document and this quality spells itself out. You’ll find many more “shall nots” than “must dos.”

However, this limited understanding of the purpose of the Bill of Rights has been replaced with the contemporary view that it is not enough to simply empower individuals by decreasing the tyrannical influences of government on their lives – even though that’s exactly the service the Bill of Rights performs so well, and would perform even better if it were upheld with anything approaching consistency.

In the place of this former understanding, a grander, more exciting path to achieving happiness has risen. The birth of the alternative is hardly a surprising development for anyone familiar with human nature. Having the claim to one’s own rights is nice, you see, but it is ever so attractive to have a claim to other people’s rights too. And, obviously, not everyone is equipped to be a respectable robber, so many have found it best (and easiest) to empower the government to do such thievery on their behalf.

For this reason, the following is a sorely needed clarification on what the Bill of Rights does not guarantee you:

I. You do not have the right to a flat screen TV, new car, home or any other form of wealth. Additionally, if you cannot provide the aforementioned items for yourself, you do not have the right to confiscate from others.

II. You do not have the right to happiness. Life deals us each a different hand of cards; we can only play the ones we were dealt. On a positive note, you do have a right to pursue happiness.

III. You do not have the right to handouts. Americans are by far the most charitable people on Earth but they are growing increasingly weary of being forced to pay for the livelihood of millions of social parasites.

IV. You do not have the right to free healthcare. We all need healthcare, but if you’re not willing to pay for yours, don’t expect anyone else to be either.

V. You do not have the right to harm either property or person without receiving punishment suitable to the crime. If you murder someone or cheat another person of his property, don’t be surprised when severe consequences follow.

Hopefully, this clarifying addendum will benefit anyone that does not have enough idle time to read that brief document that is the U.S. Constitution. These venerable pages not only protect us from the government, but they protect “we the people” from the frequently oppressive whims of “we the people.”

Jeremy Hicks is a 2008 political science graduate, the founder of the Cal Poly Libertarian Club and a Mustang Daily politcal columnist.