(09-14-2018 04:59 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(09-11-2018 07:31 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Sounds like a fun exercise - but most assuredly will get quite complex. One dichotomy that I think will be fascinating to unpack will be "positive rights vs negative rights". Someone with a stronger history/legal background can correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading/studying that a number of the founding fathers did not want to include a bill of rights because these are positive rights.

Aren't they negative rights? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" on its face seems to be limiting government from preventing people to exercise their right to bear arms as opposed to saying "people have the right to bear arms." "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." and so on is similar in wording.

No. Negative rights means you assume you have the right unless forbidden by the constitution. Positive rights means you assume you are forbidden that right unless it is allowed in the constitution.