ABSTRACT
This chapter adopts some assumptions about concepts of 'right' and 'restriction' that will facilitate the later analysis of harm and consent. It concerns the meanings of some basic terms and relies on an ordinary sense of concepts such as 'right', 'restriction', 'assertion', 'recognition', 'adoption', 'application' and 'generality', returning later if the use of those terms seems unclear. The book proposes a model that can be applied generally to cases about rights protected by the Constitution. It talks about 'the asserted right' rather than 'the asserted rights', on the understanding that, in the course of written or oral argument, the asserted right may be articulated at various levels of generality. The book focuses on cases brought in judicial fora, usually the US Supreme Court. That approach may appear to neglect processes such as negotiation or alternative dispute resolution. However, the fact that the framework is judicial does not mean that the parties to a dispute are precluded from friendly settlement.
