The vital principle of all systems of law is that a remedy must be given for the violation of every right. Our English law expresses this truth in the Latin words ubi jus, ibi remedium (whenever a right exists, there exists a corresponding remedy). This maxim has been freely translated by Lord Coke thus: “The law will that in every case where a man is wronged and endammaged that he shall have a remedy.”1 Chief Justice Holt uses even terser and stronger language: “It is a vain thing to imagine there should be a right without a remedy, for want of a right and want of a remedy are interchangeable.”2
   “...The ground of law is plain, certain, and indeed universal, that where any man is injured in his right by being either hindered in or defrauded of the enjoyment thereof, the law gives him an action to repair himself.”3
1  Co. Litt. 197 b.
2  Ashby v. White, Ld. Raym. 938; s. c. 1 Smith’s Leading Cases, 342; s. c. 1 English Ruling Cases, 521.
3  Per Holt, C. J. Ashby v. White, English Ruling Cases; 525; s. c. (House of Lords) 1 Bro. P. C. 47.
  -- from Common Law Pleading: Its History and Principles, by R. Ross Perry

Two hundred years after the founding of this country, why are those of us who don't fit into some either/or told that our pursuit of happiness doesn't count? Are we going to continue nit-picking over exactly which happiness is legal and important, and which happiness is illegal and unimportant?
  -- Kate Bornstein, transgender activist