Fundamental rights are usually defined as absolute rights a citizen of a country possesses that cannot under the majority of circumstances be taken from the citizen. Sometimes the term is used more loosely with a suggestion that all people have basic or human rights to which they should be entitled. From a legal standpoint fundamental rights are mainly those stated in legal rulings or region laws, though sometimes certain rights are thought so basic they’re inferred.

Many countries state rights of their citizens. The US is an example of this and the Bill of Rights and Amendments to the Constitution, like the 14th Amendment, make very clear some fundamental rights of citizens. These basic rights include freedom of speech and press, right to expedient trials, freedom of religion, right to assemble, and right to bear arms. Freedom against discrimination and right to vote are other provisions.

While these rights are explicitly written, there are some that may be considered even more fundamental from a legal prospective, though open to interpretation by judicial ruling. The right to refuse medical treatment to a child if it goes against a person’s religion, such as Jehovah’s Witness parents refusing blood transfusions for their children is a challenging subject but will usually be thought a fundamental right of the parent. Another potential fundamental right is to raise children in an unconventional manner, provided there is no abuse.

There are arguments that courts should view other rights as fundamental, such as the right to marriage among same-sex partners. An argument is often made that rights are fundamental, even if not stated, if most people have them. The right to marriage appears to be a fundamental right, and yet does not in most US states apply to people of the same gender.

Interesting precedent exists in federal and state courts when a right appears fundamental but cannot be won by vote. Desegregation of schools in some parts of the South had to be achieved through court order instead of by voting. The courts can become strongly involved in granted these additional rights thought fundamental because they can deem that part of society will continue to refuse to grant them. A similar decision was made with Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion. Many states and voters would have and would continue to fight this procedure as not a fundamental right of women.

Courts, on case-by-case rulings, often interpret other implicit fundamental rights that may not get much attention in country constitutions. Rights to be safe, rights not to be harassed, rights to live free of pollution, or rights for children to not be subject to bullying. These are thought foundational things, that underscore rights to freedom, and courts make decisions that affect rights of others in the future. The difficulty is in interpretation. With only implicit understanding of some fundamental rights, decisions made by courts can either be stalled for years by other courts that object, or rulings may be overturned, even if they expand rights.