> citizens don't have rights that can be violated, government has (limited) powers that can be exercised.
That would give the government much, much more power the Constitution currently grants. A few examples:
The government was granted the power to tax.
- But may not violate citizens right to equal treatment, they can't tax hispanic people four times as high as asian people.
The government was granted the power to regulate interstate commerce.
- But may not violate your first amendment rights by prohibiting the sale of conservative magazines across state lines.
The government was granted the power to build roads.
- But may not violate your property rights by building a road through your house, unless they buy it from you at fair value.
The government was granted the power to have courts.
- But may not force you to testify against yourself.
I don't think you really want to do away with the fifth amendment (and the rest of the bill of rights), to say that just because the government has the power to operate courts, you know longer have the right against self-incrimination. I don't think you really believe that the power to regulate interstate commerce isn't limited by the right of free speech.
I think that rather than just saying "oops, I misunderstood", you're grasping to find some other explanation for your words, but you haven't thought through what that would mean.
Moving to a completely different topic now.
Suppose you went to a drive-through for breakfast, and you were the first customer when they first opened. They cook put your egg sandwich on the grill and cook it for the designated amount of time. Later, you get sick because the cook didn't realize the grill hadn't yet heated fully, it was only 290 degrees instead of 350. Would you agree the restaurant is liable for making you sick? (This isn't a trick question - a simple yes or no wpuld be fine.)
Suppose on another day, the cook sees it's you ordering, and he doesn't like you. He blows his nose on your sandwich and you get sick. Should the cook also be liable for his actions, as well as the restaurant?
Note that in the first instance, the cook made a mistake, an understandable mistake. In the second instance, it wasn't a mistake - everybody knows that blowing your nose somebody's sandwich is not okay.
Is there a perhaps difference, in terms of the blame put on the cook personally, if he does something that he and everyone else clearly know is wrong?