answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

A most excellent question not asked nearly enough nor discussed often enough. Webster's ninth new collegiate dictionary defines civil rights as such:

The non political rights of a citizen: The rights of personal liberty guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and by acts of Congress.

In other words, civil rights, sometimes called legal rights or statutory rights, are those rights granted by a particular polity codified by legal statutes by some form of legislative body. In simpler terms, they are the rights granted citizens by governments. Civil rights, then, are pieces of positive law that stand in stark contrast to the natural rights of men and women. Natural rights, sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights, are those rights inherent in people and do not require codification or any passage of legislation. The Bill of Rights, for example, is an example of natural rights as opposed to civil rights. That the Bill of Rights stands as law does not in any way alter the fact that those enumerated rights and even those not enumerated are natural rights that preexist governments and as far as the United States government is concerned their very purpose of being is to protect the inherent natural rights of people.

The line between civil rights and natural rights has long since blurred into an unfathomable world of gray where terms such as natural rights are considered antiquated. We read newspapers who on a daily basis will offer a story of someones who has had their basic right to express themselves freely denied and frame it in terms of civil rights. Indeed, the American Civil Liberties Union may take your case if it is an issue of freedom of expression but still it will be framed in terms of civil rights. Television shows will present compelling dramas where well spoken and passionate lawyers defend the right of the people to peaceably assemble and frame it in terms of civil rights. Police dramas routinely feature characters that complain about the rights of the accused and refer to it as civil rights. It is, at best, a confusing issue and perhaps has been since the inception of the Constitution.

James Madison had argued that the right to trial by jury was not a natural right because it was within the construct of government and government being an artifice so then are any rights existing within that construct. The reasoning of this argument is sound but is moot. It was the people who in order to form a more perfect union came together and formed a government in which they agreed to abide by certain laws and regulations and in doing so may from time to time find themselves in conflict with the government. Because the people formed that government they wisely made it so that the accused will be afforded all presumption of innocence until proven guilty and afforded, as is their right, a trial by jury, whereby their fate will be decided by their peers. Whatever artificiality may arise by declaring a right of trial by jury only stems from the peoples natural right to create such an artifice to begin with.

The confusion reached critical mass after the passage of the 14th Amendment. It is interesting to note that Webster's felt compelled to point to the 13th Amendment as well in defining civil rights. To declare the 14th Amendment as legislation granting rights to to United States citizens would be accurate as it does appear that this is exactly what the 14th Amendment does but the 13th Amendment does no such thing. The 13th Amendment is a prohibition Amendment and what it does is prohibit slavery. Sometimes called the emancipation clause, it does no such thing. The 13th Amendment did not grant freedom to slaves with in the United States, as those slaves all ready had the right to freedom. Their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness had been denied by the people who "owned" them as property. The tolerance of the slave trade ended with the passage of the 13th Amendment but has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights. Since the right to be free is a natural right, the 13th Amendment is quite clearly addressing a natural right.

It is the bedeviling 14th Amendment that presumes to grant to people rights they are all ready in possession of and this is not the only problem. Dissent amongst proponents of natural rights include anarchist who claim governments have no authority what so ever. Thus, we have political camps where some believe that rights are inalienable and preexist any government and there are those who believe rights are artificial constructs granted by governments. Those who believe all rights are granted by governments will continue to phrase all rights as civil rights and those who believe in natural rights will ask for clarification.

play 12 sky 2 or domo

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What are the civil rights defined as?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

Civil rights are defined as what?

absolute rights guarenteed to every individual.


Which rights are defined by government or society?

civil right


What term is defined as the right of equal protection and freedom from discrimination for all citizens?

civil rights


What term is defined as the rights of equal protection and freedom from discrimination from all citizens?

civil rights


Are guns civil rights?

Civil rights can be broadly defined as a broad range of privileges and rights guaranteed by the US Constitution that guarantee fundamental freedoms to all individuals. The right to protect yourself (by possessing weapons) can be defined as a fundamental freedom..


Civil rights are defined as?

Constitutional guarantees to protect people from unfair treatment by government or other people. [Novanet]


What are the strengths and weaknesses of democracy in civil rights?

The strngths and weaknesses are defined irrationally. Although they do grant Personal civil liberties to minority groups they are defined lightly. some people feel as if in lamesn terms they give too much freedom.


What is defined as a requirement of democracy?

There are a list of requirement of democracy is a system of government. The list of requirements is: power through elections, election that are free, civil rights, political rights and government transparency.


What did the 1969 civil rights act focus on?

There were the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, but I don't think there was a Civil Rights Act of 1969.


What was one way that colonial governments differed from British governments?

Colonists rights were defined by formal documents. British rights were defined by laws and tradition


Who ended civil rights?

No one has ended civil rights.


What are the protections granted by governments?

Civil rights