Talk:Constitutional right

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Inaccurate

This article is inaccurate. The 26th Amendment does not establish a "Right to Vote" that cannot be denied to persons. A better example of a constitutional right in the US would be the right to confront witnesses (See Confrontation Clause). I am going to change the article to reflect this. takethemud 04:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)takethemud[reply]

Is this term US-specific?

This article is either horribly US-centric or should make it clear that it's talking exclusively about the United States. Moulder 07:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Wrong Wrong

Rights are not granted by the constitution. Rights are protected. If a thing is granted it is a privledge, not a right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.167.19.170 (talk • contribs) 04:27, December 8, 2006 (UTC)

Marked disputed...71.196.246.113 (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a US-specific view of this subject. Nobody else thinks like this. In every practical sense of the word, rights are granted, not just "protected". What is and is not considered a right depends on culture and the surrounding circumstances, i.e. what society deems to be a right. 150 years ago, nobody considered female suffrage to be a right. That right was then granted by subsequent legislation. Right now, some countries consider assisted suicide to be a right, whereas other countries don't. Right now, some countries consider smoking cannabis to be a right, others don't. Rights being "protected, not granted" is a nice philosophical idea, don't get me wrong, but this view has no practictal relevance at all and in every pragmatic sense rights are granted by legislation, not just protected. Abwehrkraft (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added template due to lack of sources throughout

See above comments too. --NYScholar (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of this article

Someone needs to decide whether this article is about "constitutional" or "inalienable" rights; i.e. whether it is about rights "merely" guaranteed by a constitution, or about rights asserted to be absolutely inherent to a person's status as a human being. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]