Yes, Virginia, rights are absolute.

And not just in Virginia - in all of America (everywhere really).

Politicians and others in government are often heard saying that “rights are not absolute.” Some will (mistakenly) quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, stating that “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” (legally, you actually can, though you may be held liable for any consequences). Joe Biden has frequently stated, and just as frequently been fact-checked by the media that so servilely supports him, that “You couldn't buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed.”

That these are not absolute comes from a mistaken understanding both of the Bill of Rights and of the concept of “rights” in general. To gain a better grasp of this, a little history lesson is in order.

Most Americans (I hope) have knowledge of the statement from the Declaration of Independence (that Biden (in)famously botched during his 2020 campaign) that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The founders, heavily influenced by thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Payne, believed very strongly in the rights of the individual, and the origin of those rights existing apart from government.

Thus when the federalists put forth their plan to create a central government, the anti-federalists rightly expressed concern about such a government becoming overbearing and tyrannical, trampling the rights of the citizens. Debate ensued, and eventually, the federalists and anti-federalists agreed to author several amendments to the Constitution that would enumerate some of the unalienable rights held by the people, rights which the government was permitted neither to abridge nor to infringe. These were the first ten amendments to the Constitution and now comprise that to which we refer as “The Bill of Rights.” Realizing that not all rights held by the people could be so enumerated, among the amendments, they included the Ninth Amendment stating that the particular rights enumerated should not be “construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In other words, the people had further rights which the government could not deny or diminish - the government was restricted solely to the responsibilities and powers laid out in the Constitution, and it was restricted from violating the rights of the people.

Herein lies perhaps the greatest point of misunderstanding of “rights” and those enumerated by the Bill of Rights: many, even among the so-called “learned,” believe the Bill of Rights (or the Constitution in general) to grant rights. This is simply untrue. This is why I cringe every time I hear someone refer to something as a “Constitutional right” or even as “First Amendment rights” or “Second Amendment rights”, etc. They are natural (God-given) rights that are protected by the Constitution, not granted by it. I have previously written about this, as it is important to distinguish between rights and privileges.

As I stated earlier, the rights of the individual do not come from government. Our rights are from “[our] Creator” (some refer to these as “natural rights”), and they are unalienable - “impossible to take away or give up.” Anything granted by government is a privilege, and may be restricted or rescinded by government as easily as it was granted. This is not so of rights. This is why each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights speaks of rights not being abridged, infringed, or denied. This is why these amendments do not speak in terms of granting rights - they all speak in terms of restricting government.

So, when you hear someone like Ketanji Brown-Jackson lamenting the First Amendment “hamstringing the government,” realize that she is, in a way, correct. The First Amendment is absolutely intended to prevent government abridging a person’s free speech (or freedom to exercise religion, or to peaceably assemble, or to seek a redress of grievances) in any way, and in this sense, can be considered to “hamstring” the government. She is mistaken when she avers that such “hamstringing” prevents government from pursuing its “duty to protect the citizens of this country,” because it is not the government’s constitutional responsibility to “protect the citizens of this country” from alleged “misinformation” (more misinformation comes from government than just about anywhere else). It is the government’s duty to protect our rights (again, I refer you to the Declaration of Independence - “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”). As is so often the case, those in government do not understand their reason for being there nor from whence their authority issues.

This truth has rarely stopped the government, including Justices of the Supreme Court, from issuing decisions that contradict those founding principles and contravening the rights of citizens. This happens perhaps most frequently with the right to keep and bear arms; however, much like the First Amendment, the Second Amendment places an absolute restriction on government preventing it from infringing “the right of the people” (not “the militia”) to keep (own) and bear (carry anywhere) arms (of any type).

The Fourth Amendment absolutely prohibiting government surveilling, searching, or seizing a person, a home, or belongings without a warrant supported by oath with evidence of probable cause, is also regularly violated by government. The examples are numerous. I will not belabor the point by addressing each individual amendment.

It should be clear, at this point, that rights indeed are absolute, and that the government has no business infringing any of them. Your rights only end where they are used to infringe upon the rights of another, and when you do violate the rights of another, then (and only then) government has the responsibility and authority to intervene. Then, and only then, when you have violated the rights of another, does the government have the authority to “alienate” you from your rights via imprisonment or capital punishment.

This was the perspective of the founders, and citizens would do well to remember this principle: privileges come from government; rights come from God (or, if you prefer, nature). The government can grant and cancel privileges - they have no authority to override rights in any way, shape, or form. Yes, Virginia, rights are absolute. Don’t ever let government tell you otherwise.