Difference between fundamental right and constitutional right
Answers
Answered by
31
Hey there !
Fundamental rights accrue to every citizen of the country. For example:
#Right to Equality
#Right to Freedom Right against.
#ExploitationRight to freedom of Religion.
#Educational and Cultural
# RightsRight to Constitutional Rights
Constitutional rights accrue to citizens, based on certain conditions. For example: every citizen of the country is entitled for the right to vote but if only he/she has attained a certain age limit.
Hope this helps !!
Fundamental rights accrue to every citizen of the country. For example:
#Right to Equality
#Right to Freedom Right against.
#ExploitationRight to freedom of Religion.
#Educational and Cultural
# RightsRight to Constitutional Rights
Constitutional rights accrue to citizens, based on certain conditions. For example: every citizen of the country is entitled for the right to vote but if only he/she has attained a certain age limit.
Hope this helps !!
Answered by
11
Fundamental rights are conceptual. They are ideals that are often reflected in Constitutions, or in non-binding declarations, such as those made by the United Nations.
An example of this is the right to liberty. The question that arises if we think of this as a fundamental right is: liberty in what regard? What kinds of liberty ought to be protected as fundamental rights? What kind of limits on this right are acceptable? Who decides these questions? And, if it is a fundamental right, how is it that it is treated differently in one nation state as compared to another?
This is where constitutional rights come in. Constitutional rights are rights that are considered by a nation state to be so important that they require protection from the highest form of law: the Constitution. In addition, the inclusion of them in the law that creates the nation (which is why it’s Constitutional Law, it constitutes or creates the nation when enacted), demonstrates that those rights are not simply important, they are fundamental to the identity or creation of the nation itself. So, this is a second way of defining or making sense of fundamental rights.
One of the difficulties with the notion of fundamental rights is that not all nations agree on them. This is what UN Declarations are designed to deal with. Not every nation treats women, Indigenous peoples, the disabled, or children as persons under the law of their nation with the same rights and freedoms as able-bodied men, or property owners, or whatever groups of persons the laws of the nation are designed to benefit. This begs the question: if everyone doesn’t agree that something is a right, is it a right nonetheless?
Rights can be distinguished from privileges because rights need to be protected for everyone. Privileges don’t. If we don’t allow the presumption of innocence to be applied to the most heinous of criminals, then it’s not a right, whether it’s enshrined in the constitution or not. Because if the presumption of innocence only applies in situations where we can feel some empathy for the accused (for example), then it is not a right at all; it’s a privilege.
In Canada and the USA (among others), the presumption is a right, and it is enshrined in both constitutions; but the way that media and citizens of these countries speak about accused persons demonstrates a failure to recognize this as a right. When people talk about an accused person “getting off” what they are saying is that the presumption of innocence doesn’t apply to that person, and the court that acquitted them was wrong. If the presumption applied, then the accused person is innocent until proven guilty. If the court acquits, stays, or withdraws the charges, then the person has not been proven guilty. This means that although a court does not find a person innocent, they are innocent under the law because of the presumption of innocence and the failure of the prosecution to prove the person guilty. To second guess that is to deny the accused the right to the presumption of innocence.
The idea of fundamental rights is considered in constitutional law, but there is a disconnect between them. In addition, because different nations choose to protect different rights in their constitutions the very notion of fundamental rights is called into question. When this is combined with the failure of media or a nation’s people to accept and allow the right to operate, the concept of fundamental rights is further undermined.
An example of this is the right to liberty. The question that arises if we think of this as a fundamental right is: liberty in what regard? What kinds of liberty ought to be protected as fundamental rights? What kind of limits on this right are acceptable? Who decides these questions? And, if it is a fundamental right, how is it that it is treated differently in one nation state as compared to another?
This is where constitutional rights come in. Constitutional rights are rights that are considered by a nation state to be so important that they require protection from the highest form of law: the Constitution. In addition, the inclusion of them in the law that creates the nation (which is why it’s Constitutional Law, it constitutes or creates the nation when enacted), demonstrates that those rights are not simply important, they are fundamental to the identity or creation of the nation itself. So, this is a second way of defining or making sense of fundamental rights.
One of the difficulties with the notion of fundamental rights is that not all nations agree on them. This is what UN Declarations are designed to deal with. Not every nation treats women, Indigenous peoples, the disabled, or children as persons under the law of their nation with the same rights and freedoms as able-bodied men, or property owners, or whatever groups of persons the laws of the nation are designed to benefit. This begs the question: if everyone doesn’t agree that something is a right, is it a right nonetheless?
Rights can be distinguished from privileges because rights need to be protected for everyone. Privileges don’t. If we don’t allow the presumption of innocence to be applied to the most heinous of criminals, then it’s not a right, whether it’s enshrined in the constitution or not. Because if the presumption of innocence only applies in situations where we can feel some empathy for the accused (for example), then it is not a right at all; it’s a privilege.
In Canada and the USA (among others), the presumption is a right, and it is enshrined in both constitutions; but the way that media and citizens of these countries speak about accused persons demonstrates a failure to recognize this as a right. When people talk about an accused person “getting off” what they are saying is that the presumption of innocence doesn’t apply to that person, and the court that acquitted them was wrong. If the presumption applied, then the accused person is innocent until proven guilty. If the court acquits, stays, or withdraws the charges, then the person has not been proven guilty. This means that although a court does not find a person innocent, they are innocent under the law because of the presumption of innocence and the failure of the prosecution to prove the person guilty. To second guess that is to deny the accused the right to the presumption of innocence.
The idea of fundamental rights is considered in constitutional law, but there is a disconnect between them. In addition, because different nations choose to protect different rights in their constitutions the very notion of fundamental rights is called into question. When this is combined with the failure of media or a nation’s people to accept and allow the right to operate, the concept of fundamental rights is further undermined.
Similar questions