What is more important to you and why: your constitutional rights and ensuring they aren’t infringed upon under any circumstances, or having laws that help and protect others but at the cost of your rights being infringed upon? Why?

24 comments

1. This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:

   * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.

   * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.

   * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.

   * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**

   If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**

   *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*

2. “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

3. These do not have to be mutually exclusive.

   Constitutional rights are primarily protections from government overreach.

4. I reject that we can’t have both.

   But then I also don’t think there is any right not to be offended.

5. Depends on the constitutional right.

6. I don’t believe there is such a thing as a law that is a net positive for people but also infringes on their rights.

7. This question is so vague it’s virtually meaningless

8. Rights can not be infringed upon by an ordinary law. The entire legal system is based on that hierarchy.

   But on a case by case basis I would consider that certain constitutional rights might need to be amended following the process outlined in the constitution to allow certain ordinary laws to be enacted.

   There are also extreme cases where certain constitutional rights might need to be temporarily suspended, like during hurricanes.

9. The constitution is not asking for permission. It is telling the government WTF it can’t do. So how I feel or want is not important

10. I will keep my guns, banning legal guns does not make gun violence disappear. Anyone who’s lived in a city like Chicago, Milwaukee, or Detroit knows gangbangers aren’t using registered or legal fire arms. By banning guns you are effectively just taking them away from law abiding citizens

11. This question misunderstands how our Constitution works. These two things are not in conflict.

    Laws must comply with the Constitution. There are no valid laws that violate rights. By definition, those would be deemed unconstitutional.

    And if we want laws that “infringe on our rights,” we can change the Constitution. This is how we determine if we want to cede our rights to the government.

12. A big problem with the premise of your question is the presumption that “laws that help and protect others” are guaranteed to actually do so. Most likely, you’ll end up with infringement *and* not end up with the promised help or protection.

    Another big problem with the entire question is the phrasing “**your** constitutional rights.” They’re *everyone’s* rights (including yours), not just those of the people you disagree with. You not caring about these rights or having some inability to see how they’re important to everyone is not a valid justification for infringement.

13. I want us all to have enough. Enough food, enough shelter, enough healthcare, and enough money to survive.

    There are compromises I’d make to my lifestyle to make that happen. More taxes? If I had enough. Smaller living space? Sure. More regulations? Bring ’em.

    However, I wouldn’t give up my right to free speech and assembly. Those rights are necessary to keep the government in check.

14. I’ll keep my constitutional rights as written and ask that existing laws are enforced as written.

15. I reject the framing of the question. There is nothing that violates my rights, that benefits others without being malicious.

16. Rights. Period. No question.

17. I know this is controversial but I put children’s lives over anyone’s right to own a gun

18. If I’m interpreting your question correctly I’m assuming you mean something along the lines of gay rights > religious rights?

    In some cases yes, in others no. I don’t agree a private business can turn away customers due to “religious reasons,” but I would agree churches and priests don’t have to officiate gay weddings.

    There’s a lot of nuance in your question.

19. False choice. Infringing on our rights isn’t going to make us safer. It’s only going to make us sheep.

20. Without context, this question is impossible to answer.

    Despite what others here may say in their comment, every single person in America is perfectly comfortable with some laws that infringe upon freedoms and oppose others. It’s just a part of living in a society.

21. In theory I’m not 100% opposed to laws that minorly infringe on rights if the benefit to society is large enough. Instant background checks for gun purchases are a good example.

    But in general things like that don’t exist too much. Either the benefit is much smaller than advertised or the infringement is much larger than advertised.

22. The constitution *is* a set of laws. It’s not a one or the other situation.

23. The US constitution is unique in that it affirms rights, it does not grant them.

    I don’t really understand your question otherwise.

24. Constitutional rights hands down. The constitution in the US grants specifically enumerated powers to the branches of the federal government and the government has only those powers. Anything the federal government does that is outside the bounds of the powers granted to it by the constitution is illegal and an illegitimate government action. It is the laws the government has to abide by, no matter the good intentions of whatever policy may be pursued.