Interfere with

[Allen165]

"Under United States law the principal limitations on whether and the extent to which the State may interfere with property rights are set by the Constitution."

Would you say that "to interfere with rights" is tantamount to violating them? Or that it's less severe than a violation?

Thanks!

[Raymott]

"Under United States law the principal limitations on whether and the extent to which the State may interfere with property rights are set by the Constitution."

Would you say that "to interfere with rights" is tantamount to violating them? Or that's it's less severe than a violation?

Thanks!

"Interfering" is generally less serious than "violating". But if my country interfered with my property rights, I'd feel that as a violation of my rights.
But it depends on what the actual act is.
Your sentence says property rights; your question asks about rights in general. That might also make a difference.

[Barb_D]

Rights have limits.

Freedom of speech is a right, but it is not unlimited. I don't have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, causing panic and mayhem. I don't have the right to say untruthful things about people with the intention of causing them harm. Laws passed that limit my right to speak freely may be seen as interfering with my rights, but it is not a violation of my rights to have limits put on them. A violation is unlawful. Being arrested for saying "Our president is a big jerk" is a violation of my rights. It's unlawful.

The very way your sentence was written shows a bias on the part of the writer, in my opinion, that any effort to limit rights is interfering. I don't agree in the abstract.

Having said that, like Ray, if my own rights were being limited, I may well feel they were being interfered with and even violated.

[Allen165]

I guess one could say that, at the very least, it means to affect rights negatively. "To impinge on" might be a synonym.

[Barb_D]

I agree that it sure isn't a reference to an expansion of rights.

Not all of this is negative. Going back to a sad time in our history, at one point the ownership of other human beings would have been covered by property rights. Losing that right was no doubt seen as negative to the people who did the owning, but not to the people who were owned!