For Discussion: Rights vs Right

The US Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in order to, "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." In other words, Congress wanted to make the rights of the people and the legal limitations placed on the US government perfectly clear so that the government could be trusted to act for the benefit of the people.

While there were precedents for such a list (the English Bill of Rights and the Bills of Rights of individual states), the US Bill of Rights (adopted 1791) was revolutionary in both its guarantee of a wide range of personal freedoms and its explicitly stated limitations on governmental power. Indeed, some historians argue that the adoption of the Bill of Rights was the last act of an American Revolution that began with the signing of Declaration of Independence in 1776.

Since then, the Bill of Rights has become a source of sustained and, at times, virulent debate. Despite the continuing debates concerning the scope and meaning of the Bill of Rights, only a few have questioned the prudence of such a list without a corresponding list of civic duties. Is it right to demand one's rights from one's nation without also expressing a willingness to serve that nation or at the very least exercise those rights responsibly? Has the Bill of Rights created an American citizenry that is so concerned about protecting their own personal freedoms that few Americans consider what responsibilities go with those freedoms?

G.K. Chesterton, an English apologist of the early 20th century, remarked, "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." This quote is also located at the bottom of The Patriots' Lyceum webpage. How does the idea expressed in this quote apply to the Bill of Rights and to the responsibilities of Americans?

--Cicerone