Dangit, I usually reference quotes, so I don’t recall if I wrote this, or stole it from someplace that I forgot to cite. I think I wrote it, but wouldn’t swear to it.
Personhood contains inseparable rights that devolve from that essence, a set of rights which may be myriad and perhaps innumerable. Some of these rights are one and the same with personhood – they cannot be disseised or willfully abstracted, as they are one and the same. It is a postulate that rights cannot be taken by the actions of others, but merely suppressed or delimited in exercise. Such intrusion is likely perceived by its owner as a wrong, no matter whether the owner comprehends or finds rational satisfaction in the cause for such disparagement.
Many students of these issues have described the various rights of personhood, so as to illuminate them by examination. W. L. Hohfeld so divided and analyzed rights as to create a firm, if arguable, framework of their types.
The epistemology of liberty rights can be troublesome in consideration. A liberty right may not become recently recognizable or namable until a wrong occurs that shapes the perception of that right. The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution gives recognition to the innumerability, the universe of rights; only an infinitesimal sample of which can be lawfully constrained.
Traditional principles in equity attend to the formal perception of a claim which arises upon transgression of one’s liberty; the construction of a righteous remedy to that claim; and the implementation by process of that remedy, with the end of producing an equitable satisfaction under the wisdom of the court.
The matter of transgression of a right by means inherently evil in nature or offensive against the public order is of undeniable interest to the society in which the transgression has occurred, the society containing the persons involved in such transgression. Any such society perceives a compelling mandate that such transgression be duly handled in particular way.
When a society, government, or other aggregate of individuals acts in response to malicious transgressions, it is necessary that the greater and more powerful entity have pre-existing rules comprised of a list of the transgressions offensive to the government with jurisdiction over the transgression; a process by which the facts pertaining to such transgressions are dispassionately examined and the details of which exhaustively compared to the description of what constitutes a particular transgression; and finally, a formal and invariant method by which such facts are presented and scrutinized in comparison to the law of the pertinent transgression, and a judgment rendered.
It is through such orderly process that the architecture of governmental duties is laid out. It is only through the orderly and dispassionate procedure of handling matters of injurious wrongs and other sorts of similar occurrences, that a government may claim any immunity from the effect of its own acts of punishing a person by means of curtailing his or her free exercise of rights. This is especially so in any such punishment which delimits a person’s fundamental or inalienable rights.
“No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land