Was there something you didn't understand about this?: So there's no use in trying to debate me simply because I don't debate, period. The First Amendment contains the words "the right of the people", it should read "the individual right of the people" because there is still no such thing as group rights. The First Amendment is not a dictionary and it doesn't establish the meaning of rights. The Declaration of Independence states: " ... all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [or naturally for atheists] with certain unalienable Rights" Human beings are born as individuals, not groups. Although Wikileaks is not the ultimate source, it states: In American discourse, individual rights are often associated with political and economic freedom, whereas group rights are associated with social control. This is because in America the establishment of individual rights is associated with equality before the law and protection from the state. and In the United States, the Constitution outlines individual rights within the Bill of Rights. I only brought up the above because Wiki states correctly that the Constitution is strictly about individual rights, not group rights (which again, don't exist). There are a couple of fallacies above. There cannot be an establishment of individual rights, there can be an establishment of the protection of individual rights. And the Bill of Rights outlines the protection of individual rights, it only outlines the protection of specific individual rights and the remainder of individual rights (9th Amendment). A formal group is a fiction created and sanctioned by a piece of paper, it cannot have inherent rights, unlike a human being whose rights exist at birth and not by a piece of paper. And a group is created with specific powers/privileges usually dictated by laws and regulations. This is usually stated in its charter.
True but it makes no sense to apply rights to The People as a group. They are not and I seriously doubt the founders meant it that way.