All rights under the Bill of Rights have been under assault since the founding of the nation. Somewhere in the history of the nation the Supreme Court made 2 unamerican rulings. The first held that the Declaration provides no legal precedents. This means that the statements "all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights" and "governments are instituted among men who derive their just authority from the consent of the governed" have no legal weight. The second holds "that no right is absolute". If a right is NOT absolute then it is NOT a right. Johnson's Attorney General (Ramsey Clarke) once said "a right is not something you are given, it is something that cannot be taken away". Unfortunately the Court rejects this definition. This is due to the 2 rulings above. The court accepts the definition that a right is a government granted permission. Judge Legg claimed in Woollard that "a citizen doesn't need a reason to exercise his rights, the right's existence is all he needs". I don't expect this view to stand in light of the Court's long standing rejection of the concept of unalienable rights.
