It would be idle and trite to say that no right is absolute.

Explanation

(English-origin maxim.) While every right has limits, the point of this maxim is that declaring rights non-absolute is itself a commonplace that proves nothing — the real question is always where the limit falls, not whether one exists.

Where this applies

• A government argues that no constitutional right is absolute and therefore it can restrict speech in any way it deems reasonable, but the court responds that while the truism is acknowledged, the real question is whether this specific restriction falls within permissible limits.
• A prosecutor argues that the right to bear arms is not absolute to justify a total ban on firearms, and the court holds that merely stating rights are non-absolute proves nothing — the state must still show where the lawful limit falls.
• An agency invokes the non-absolute nature of property rights to justify a regulation that effectively destroys all value of the property, and the court rules that the abstract observation does not answer the concrete question of whether this particular regulation goes too far.