Not the citizens.

They are privileges. You likely have no inherent authority or right to the things you're thinking of when you say 'right'.

Well, then, it was a bad idea to let the government change the constitution, wasn't it, Dusty?

Ugh... I give up, please, just please look up the constitution.

PLease read it.

PLease take the time to understand it.

It isn't there for the government to control the citizens.

The founding fathers were clear that *anything* in the constitution could be changed with enough support for an amendment

LAWS and legislations are for that.

We know what the constitution is. Get off your high horse. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're wrong.

This just in: the constitution is not a legal document.

The constitution tells the government what it CAN or Can't do.

Don’t like guns? You can amend the constitution to get rid of then

The bill of rights ensures the citizens their right.

We know that, but the government has control OVER the constitution.

Our government can establish laws that must abide by the constitution.

I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers didn't expect the US Constitution to last more than one generation.

Forbid religious majority rule ala Iran/Pakistan?

How odd that it had to be written in, then, if they're inherent rights.

This is why it gets changed.

The idea of inalienable rights depends upon the idea of divinity

Otherwise they're just rights that we all agree are for the best and should be respected

The idea of natural rights is nonsense on stilts.

If they didn't consider it to last more than a century, they wouldn't have stated that the "The tree of liberty from time to time must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

The point is that the constitution by its design can be altered; so all this legalistic argumentation is useless. We shouldn’t argue what is *in* the constitution that should or should not be followed; we should argue about the principles of the constitution and principles in general to see if the law needs to be amended thusly

What's your point?

They being just Jefferson.

Tree of liberty refers to the constitution and bill of rights that ensures our freedom and liberty.

the constitution was influenced by Locke who states that we have rights not granted just because of the government

No, those are what help to protect liberty.

Pretty sure that quote was from Jefferson who wasnt even in the country at the point saying that. He was refencing Shay's rebellion I think it was

It would be a much better tool of ensuring them if it couldn't be edited.

It doesn't need to be edited in order to be eroded. See: 2nd amendment.

Yeah, we can literally just ignore it.

We have for, like, over a century.

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, *if you can keep it*.”

You do realize... that you arguing this allows for the government to stripe us of our rights and effectively put us under tyrannical rule.

Honestly I wonder if the problem of this whole debate started with my miscommunication. @Dusty Morgan maybe your right that the constitution would grant the freedom of prostitution, but in my humanistic perspective I find prostitution abhorrent and people shouldn’t do it, whether or not it should be legal

Not only do we have a government that must respect those principles of freedoms, we as citizens also are expected to fight back when the government oversteps their limitations

"Somehow the notion of unalienable liberty got lost. It's really become a question of what liberties will the state assign to individuals or rather, what liberties we will have the strength to cling to."

I do agree with @Bookworm that religious conviction shouldn’t be bared as motivation for law