[Talisker]

...Actually I do discuss negative rights [though tangentially]; I just don’t use the term as such. Look around the word forms of “delineate.”

You wrote: "...and limits the authority of the position to some specifically delineated section.

This is grossly incorrect. Negative rights are not a "section" of the Constitution - they are the fundamental orientation of ALL power in it. If anything, designated powers are a "delineated section" of fundamental negative rights, lthough that would be a terrifically clumsy way of putting it.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[OneWingedShark]

So then, are you saying that a definition of something by giving all the things that it is not is not a valid definition?

Negative rights are, to my understanding, the things that the government is prevented from doing (as opposed to obligated/authorized to do); i.e the fourth amendment [supposedly] prevents the government from issuing a blank “find dirt on this guy”-warrant.

The Constitution is NOT a social contract between [particular] individuals, rather it is a contract between the people-themselves which sets-up the government and as such details how that government should interact with its people.

[Abundy]

The term "negative rights" is fundamentally flawed and should never be used in a sentence. The two words should not appear together at any time or place, with "negative" operating on "right" to describe a type of "right."

As defined by the Declaration of Independence, Rights are affirmative, and as such, can limit or trump the scope of powers and authorities that may be delegated to government. Furthermore, governments cannot have "rights," only delegated authority. Therefore a "negative right" cannot exist.

Anyone that uses the term "negative rights" is a moron and has no concept of our Constitution.

That last sentence is not directed at you, but at the, ahem, "Constitutional Scholar" currently infesting the White House.