We often hear people talk of their rights, but rarely do I hear someone speaking who could actually explain from where these “rights” are emanating. Often we hear “I know my rights” and most often that person might have the vaguest grasp of what is contained within the Constitution.  But now let us explore the SOURCE of these unalienable rights. Do you think it is the Bill of Rights (BoR)?  Does the BoR spell out to the people what rights are being granted and is this the source of these rights? What “rights” are given specifically to the people in any of the first ten amendments of the U. S. Constitution? Do the words actually say, or can you prove it was the intent of the writers, that these ten phrases are speaking to the people, or are they directed possibly someone else? We would know which are rights granted here in the document, by reading the words of the Bill of Rights and observing if any of them speak to “the people” and say “you get this right that is specifically named here”.   Shall we look to see how many there are actually being granted by this part of the document? and how many are assumed but not explicitly enumerated?  Is there a right found here?  Read it carefully before responding Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Is there a right granted here? Carefully read because it doesn’t say way what you may think. The instruction, the take away, the writing was not directed at the people was it? 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. This one doesn’t read like a Right as much as it does a rule about what the government may not do, as restriction on power, not and extension or granting of a right to the people.  Seems like the rights are assumed and that this document was just a list of the 10 most troubling things the founders were concerned about while forming a new government. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Pretty sure this one was written to the government about what they cannot do to the people. Not written to the people talking about a right. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This one is laundry list of what the government may not do to a person: No secret indictments;   1.5 Allowing for temporary suspension of that restriction during times of war or ...

1. We often hear people talk of their rights, but rarely do I hear
someone speaking who could actually explain from where these
“rights” are emanating.
Often we hear “I know my rights” and most often that person
might have the vaguest grasp of what is contained within the
Constitution. But now let us explore the SOURCE of these
unalienable rights. Do you think it is the Bill of Rights (BoR)?
Does the BoR spell out to the people what rights are being
granted and is this the source of these rights?
What “rights” are given specifically to the people in any of the
first ten amendments of the U. S. Constitution?
Do the words actually say, or can you prove it was the intent of
the writers, that these ten phrases are speaking to the people, or
are they directed possibly someone else?
We would know which are rights granted here in the document,
by reading the words of the Bill of Rights and observing if any
of them speak to “the people” and say “you get this right that is
specifically named here”. Shall we look to see how many there
are actually being granted by this part of the document? and
how many are assumed but not explicitly enumerated?
Is there a right found here? Read it carefully before
responding
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a

2. redress of grievances.
Is there a right granted here? Carefully read because it
doesn’t say way what you may think. The instruction, the take
away, the writing was not directed at the people was it?
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.
This one doesn’t read like a Right as much as it does a rule
about what the government may not do, as restriction on power,
not and extension or granting of a right to the people.
Seems like the rights are assumed
and that this document was just a list of the 10 most troubling
things the founders were concerned about while forming a new
government.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a
manner to be prescribed by law.
Pretty sure this one was written to the government about what
they cannot do to the people. Not written to the people talking
about a right.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.
This one is laundry list of what the government may not do to a
person:

3. No secret
indictments; 1.5 Allowing for temporary suspension of that
restriction during times of war or public danger (see Lincoln
who suspended
Habeas Corpus
during one such time);
No Double Jeopardy—which may sound like a right but really
limits the powers
of the prosecution.
You cannot make me testify against myself? Sounds like what
the
government cannot
do. I could testify against myself if I wanted to, but cannot be
compelled by the State to do so;
The
state cannot
take my stuff, my freedom or my life, unless they can do so
through a process of law;
The
State cannot
take my stuff for public use unless I have been justly
compensated. Again, state cannot . . .
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or
in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be

4. deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.
The State cannot:
Leave me hanging indefinitely in jail,
Cook up a bunch of people who will convict me without Due
Process;
Get people from another place to judge me, only from within
my “area”;
The State must
give fair and full warning of the charge and reason for such
charge—they cannot ambush me in a prosecution;
The State must
produce those who accuse me, they cannot accuse and hide;
The State must
use resources to assist me in producing people who may have
information;
The State must
allow me to have legal assistance, BUT does not say they have
to provide it in the event that I cannot afford it
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to
a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be

5. confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.
This one is a civil matter, but provide a venue for redress that
the State must provide for matter over 20 dollars—they must
provide the court, the jury, and adhere to both the process and
the ruling of said jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to
the rules of the common law.
This one says the State cannot . . .
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
The last two limit what the federal government can do, saying
that unless the document has specifically granted the
government a power, then everything else is assumed to belong
to the state government or retained by the people. Again, not
granting
anything, only stating that the Federal government cannot
remove them without specific authority.
So who has rights in this country? And from where do they
emanate?