Editing Openai/695c860c-fb24-8010-a014-a687d2d61cb3 (section)

=== User: I am not going to address or refine every claim you made here, but to reiterate the correct foundation for understandin… ===
I am not going to address or refine every claim you made here, but to reiterate the correct foundation for understanding, there are no such things as constitutional rights. There are human rights, and governments exist to protect them.
Also, there is no fault line.
The federal courts already have jurisdiction for all controversies involving matters of right and particularly calls out those "arising under" the federal Constitution, which grants jurisdiction for the express purpose of securing liberty in perpetuity.
There is no enumeration of rights within the Constitution proper to act as a filter to decide to which controversies federal court jurisdiction attaches--and an interpretation that would limit jurisdiction only to certain rights was never intended, as evidenced by the fact that the Bill of Rights was a later addition. So it makes no sense even to have a concept of "incorporating" rights declared as federal constitutional amendments onto those states -- the federal constitution is not the source of those rights. Hence courts have no authority to gatekeep the natural inheritance of all human beings (as expressly declared in the Declaration of Independence). Congress could delete the entire Bill of Rights tomorrow and the government would still be responsible to protect all of the people's rights in every state, no matter who or what "declares" a right, no matter when or where.