Question

Protection for individual rights in U.S. society reflects the idea that all people have....?

Answer 1

Natural rights. The American (and English) tradition of civil liberties grows out of what is sometimes called "natural law theory," which itself derives from Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian traditions among warbands. The ideas is that there are certain rights and responsibilities which arise "naturally," from the very fact of human existence, and which can (or should) be easily deduced by anyone with a brain. They are NOT the result of a commandment from a god, or a decree by a ruler, or even a written agreement between citizens. They pre-exist all that, and are therefore superior to it. For example, it is perfectly "legal" within this tradition for an individual to break a written law in defense of his (unwritten) "natural law" rights, and, indeed, to the extent a written law encroaches on those natural rights, the written law is itself illegal, wrong, void.

This idea is woven deep into the English "common law" tradition, and is why in English and American legal tradition, you have a chance of defying government based on tradition and natural understanding, rather than any written instrument, commandment from god, constitution, et cetera. It underlies, for example, the principle in English and American jurisprudence that a jury can acquit you of any crime, any written law notwithstanding. It underlies the tradition of habeas corpus. You can hear its spirit in the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are ....endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." Notice these rights come from the Creator -- not any agency of man -- and that they are "inalienable," meaning you cannot sign them away even voluntarily. These are "natural" rights.

The United States took the odd step of writing down many of these natural rights, in the Bill of Rights. This was controversial at the time, since the Framers generally disliked the idea of limiting natural rights by writing them down. They preferred leaving the judgment of what were, and were not, natural rights, to the judgment of the people at the time. But it has generally proved useful, as the Bill of RIghts has provided a touchstone, a point of reference, for the discussion of what natural rights people possess, if any. For example, during the heyday of socialism and fascism, in the 30s, you often heard of people speaking of a "second" Bill of Rights, containing natural rights to things like food, shelter, adequate medical care for free, et cetera. This is a perversion of the whole concept of rights, but it is a conversation both interesting and clearly sparked by the existence of the Bill of Rights.