The statement is part of a conversation criticizing a panelist's comment on a news show. The tone is confrontational and challenges the panelist's understanding of the Constitution in relation to the origin of rights. The statement implies that the panelist's view is incorrect and that the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to bestow rights, suggesting that rights are inherent or come from a divine source, which is a common interpretation among some groups.
- The statement is critical but does not cause harm through its words. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by not engaging in personal attacks. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement promotes understanding by clarifying a point of constitutional interpretation. [+1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement uses influence to correct what the speaker sees as a misconception about constitutional rights. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.