= new reply since forum marked as read
The XXVI Amendment gives the right to vote to citizens 18 years of age and over. An 18 year old, or member of that group, has a right that a 17 year old individual does not.
Lots of Sections in Article I give certain rights to groups of elected officials, like compensation (Sec 6). Sec 8 gives congress the right, as a body, to lay and collect taxes.
The right to declare war is left to the greater body and not for the individual to undertake.
That would be the right that the people of the US exercised when they had that revolution thing.
The right of self-government. A society can organize the methods by which it governs itself however it chooses, voting by members being the most popular these days.
An individual trying to hold a revolution, or an individual trying to vote when no election is being held, is pissing in the wind.
When an individual votes, they are exercising the collective right of the people in question to govern itself. There may also be a formal right to vote, a civil right assigned to members of the society as individuals.
An individual using a weapon to defend their society, whether against internal or external forces that seek to usurp power over that society and thwart its collective will, is exercising the collective right of the people in question to determine its present and future. There could also be a formal right to possess weapons, again, a civil right assigned to members of the society as individuals.
No one suggests that the right to vote is some independent, fundamental, individual right that exists absent an organized process for the exercise of the collective right of self-government.
Similarly, where there is an individual right to possess weapons for the purpose of exercising the collective right of self-determination, that does not mean that there must necessarily be any other individual right to possess, or do anything else with, any weapon in particular.
Switzerland and its militia would be an example of individuals possessing weapons for the purpose of exercising the collective right of self-determination.
Why so many people want to disregard the express reference to the militia in the US Constitution, well, who knows? The entire second amendment is completely obviously about the collective rights of self-determination and self-government ("the security of a free state"
.
I hope your recovery is proceeding well. 
Fifth trip to hospital last week -- four weeks post-break, two weeks post-surgery -- xrays showed everything in place, got the staples out of the surgery incision (owww), got my fourth cast, and they sent me home with an appointment for three weeks thence. That will be five weeks into the six weeks from surgery of zero weight bearing. So until then, I bumble around the ground floor of the house in the rented wheelchair, still contemplating whether a walker is a good idea (build up those arm muscles!) or would just be tempting fate.
It all makes one appreciate the whole accessible design thing, not to mention universal health insurance! This will end up costing me about $50 in various prescriptions, a couple of hundred in taxi fares, $45 for the medically-necessary ambulance, and about $100 for the wheelchair for two months. And of course the $750 premium I paid last year (it's a sliding scale and most people pay less in Ontario) and whatever other part of my taxes goes for this stuff. Not a bad deal.
...has "powers" not rights.
US Constitution, Bill of Rights, 10 Amendment:
Declaration of Independence:
From my perspective, humans have natural "rights" which are attributes of their humanity. From the basic Natural rights listed in the Declaration certain interpersonal or social rights are derived such as the right to own property. Due to the legal system, set up by convention among the people, Amendments 4 through 9 derive from a just respect for the natural rights to life and liberty.
Criminal investigation, arrest, trial and punishment are duties performed by the government by the exercise of its just powers in respect for the rights of individuals.
Good morning!The question in the OP was
"Are there any rights that the people as a body enjoy that individuals do not?"
I still maintain that the state and the "people" are one and the same for the purpose of this discussion. OJ was tried by the People of California. The people exercised their right to put him on trial. He exercised his right to due process. The jury exercised it's right to acquit. And we all exercised our right to say WTF.
Where did that hour go again? 
Daylight Time: It's a tax. Except for the good citizens of Arizona who've rejected it, we have surrendered an hour of our time plus the cost of making the change twice a year to the government. No one "gets" that time, it is just gone. We do, in the Fall "get back" another (somewhat less valuable) hour. In the mean time some of us benefit from the adjustment of having dawn and dusk delayed an hour. It is merely a tax on all which benefits a few.
Rights: In considering the rights of individuals, there are no rights inherent to a collective not derived from the rights of and dependent on the participation of individuals. Therefore, there are no collective rights that are not basically individual. OJ was tried by a court as it was charged with the duty to do so. An investigation into the crime was undertaken out of respect for the right to life of all individuals and in light of the victim's right to life being infringed. While OJ participated in his own defense his right to due process was respected by the government. Proper procedure was followed. The jury's duty is to return a verdict. That "WTF" at the end comes under freedom speech and is also individual.
Have nice "dai". (I realize dai isn't exactly 1/24th shorter than "day" but you get the idea.)
...the last time I had a related discussion, some folks were not on the same page as their definitions tended to differ.
From my perspective, no, all rights are inherent in each individual. 
also a good read
