Read the passage and answer the questions. Ronald Dworkin's thesis is that some of the rights people have fundamental, but many are not. They are fundamental because they are 'the rights against the state'. Dworkin says that the notion of rights as trumps 'marks the distinctive conept of an individual right against the state which is the heart ... of constitutional theory in the United States.' In the special supplement, Dworkin argued that the concept of right against the government becomes most useful particularly when the society is divided on racial lines into majority and... Show more Read the passage and answer the questions. Ronald Dworkin's thesis is that some of the rights people have fundamental, but many are not. They are fundamental because they are 'the rights against the state'. Dworkin says that the notion of rights as trumps 'marks the distinctive conept of an individual right against the state which is the heart ... of constitutional theory in the United States.' In the special supplement, Dworkin argued that the concept of right against the government becomes most useful particularly when the society is divided on racial lines into majority and minority. The right to freedom of speech and religious freedom belong to this category. Therefore, they are strong rights. He asserts that these rights should be permitted and they should not be interfered or banned. These freedoms are to be allowed even if the welfare of the collectivity is infringed. On the contrary, he also presupposes a large area of rights where the state can make legislations curtailing those rights to achieve common welfare. They can be called weak rights. Right to liberty for example becomes a weak right against right to equality, a strong right. This at the outset may look contradictory, but it is not. For example, restraining the movement on the roads for safety and smooth traffic movement does not mean restraining the rights, on the other hand, putting a restriction on publication or restraining the freedom of speech will infringe the rights even if it enhances general welfare. Thus, even though in both cases rights are involved, curtailment of one is justified, whereas the other is not. Show less
Read the passage and answer the questions. Ronald Dworkin's thesis is that some of the rights people have fundamental, but many are not. They are fundamental because they are 'the rights against the state'. Dworkin says that the notion of rights as trumps 'marks the distinctive conept of an individual right against the state which is the heart ... of constitutional theory in the United States.' In the special supplement, Dworkin argued that the concept of right against the government becomes most useful particularly when the society is divided on racial lines into majority and minority. The right to freedom of speech and religious freedom belong to this category. Therefore, they are strong rights. He asserts that these rights should be permitted and they should not be interfered or banned. These freedoms are to be allowed even if the welfare of the collectivity is infringed. On the contrary, he also presupposes a large area of rights where the state can make legislations curtailing those rights to achieve common welfare. They can be called weak rights. Right to liberty for example becomes a weak right against right to equality, a strong right. This at the outset may look contradictory, but it is not. For example, restraining the movement on the roads for safety and smooth traffic movement does not mean restraining the rights, on the other hand, putting a restriction on publication or restraining the freedom of speech will infringe the rights even if it enhances general welfare. Thus, even though in both cases rights are involved, curtailment of one is justified, whereas the other is not.
Join 4M+ learners. Unlock unlimited quizzes, wrong-answer tracking, flashcards + reminders, study guides, and 1-on-1 challenges.