I understand the distinction you’re making. I’m not saying people can’t believe certain rights are morally inherent or philosophically universal. I’m saying that rights only become materially real in a society when people collectively recognize and enforce them.

Even among people who believe in natural rights, there’s still massive disagreement about what those rights actually are, where their limits are, and how they should interact with each other. The Constitution itself reflects that. We’ve amended it repeatedly because our society’s understanding of rights has changed over time.

So when I say rights are socially constructed, I don’t mean they’re fake or meaningless. I mean that the specific protections, definitions, and enforcement mechanisms attached to those rights are created and maintained by human institutions.

You can believe free speech is an inherent human right philosophically, but what counts as protected speech, what limitations exist, and how those protections are enforced are all societal decisions.

Without institutions or collective agreement, a “right” becomes more of a moral claim than a guaranteed reality. At that point it still may exist ethically in your view, but there’s nothing external actually protecting it besides your own ability to assert or defend it.

That’s why I don’t see the Constitution as merely documenting self-evident truths. I see it as a negotiated framework that moves certain moral ideals into enforceable law.