Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
How many of you know the difference between a right and a privilege? As most of the audience for Res Ipsa Loquitur have an interest in law and/or politics, I’m going to hazard the guess that most of you have at least a rudimentary understanding of the difference in terms although it is a deceptively complicated subject on a philosophical level. However, just so there is no mistake in fundamental terms, we’ll start with basic relevant definitions.
rights, n.,
1) plural of right, which is the collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts or under an agreement (contract).
privileges and immunities, n.,
the fundamental rights that people enjoy in free governments, protected by the U.S. Constitution in Article IV: “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities in the several States,” and specifically to be protected against state action by the Constitution’s 14th Amendment (1868): “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The definition of “privileges and immunities” was first spelled out by Supreme Court Justice Bushrod Washington in 1823: “protection by the government, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may prescribe for the general good of the whole.” However, the exact nature of privileges and immunities which the state governments could limit has long been in dispute, with the U.S. Supreme Court gradually tipping toward protecting the individual rights of citizens against state statutes that might impinge on constitutional rights. [emphasis added]
rights given or reserved to the people by the U.S. Constitution, and in particular, the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments). These rights include: writ of habeas corpus, no bill of attainder, no duties or taxes on transporting goods from one state to another (Article I, Section 9); jury trials (Article III, Section 1); freedom of religion, speech, press (which includes all media), assembly and petition (First Amendment); state militia to bear arms (Second Amendment); no quartering of troops in homes (Third Amendment); no unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment); major (“capital and infamous”) crimes require indictment, no double jeopardy (more than one prosecution) for the same crime, no self-incrimination, right to due process, right to just compensation for property taken by eminent domain (Fifth Amendment); in criminal law, right to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses against one, and to counsel (Sixth Amendment); trial by jury (Seventh Amendment); right to bail, no excessive fines, and no cruel and unusual punishments (Eighth Amendment); unenumerated rights are reserved to the people (Ninth Amendment); equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment); no racial bars to voting (15th Amendment); no sex bar to voting (19th Amendment); and no poll tax (24th Amendment). Constitutional interpretation has expanded and added nuances to these rights. [emphasis added]
Now what would you say if you knew that state senators were proposing legislation that would convert Freedom of Speech from a right to a privilege? This is not a theoretical question. Four state senators from New York are currently considering proposing such legislation. Fortunately, the 1st Amendment gives us the right to discuss what a bad and scary idea it is that they propose.
Rev. Fred L. Shuttlesworth is ranked alongside Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy as one of the nation’s civil rights leaders. He was 89 when he died on Oct. 5 in Birmingham, Alabama. Shuttlesworth survived bombings, beatings, and the business end of a fire hose that left him chest injuries. Shuttlesworth was often on the front lines of civil rights protests.
