What justifications can be employed for limiting someone's rights?

When it comes to limiting rights, the usual formulation is that fundamental rights should be abridged only for compelling reasons. Most of the time, this is because people's fundamental rights, or claims of fundamental rights, collide. We have freedom of religion—which flows from the freedom of self-determination. However, we would permissibly prohibit the exercise of a religion which demands human sacrifice. The victim's right to life trumps the perpetrator's freedom to worship. Freedom to contract is sometimes abridged to preclude unfair trade practices. We've somewhat arbitrarily defined various "fundamental rights" in our constitutional law. Lesser rights may be abridged for lesser reasons, with a social consensus (as reflected in legislation) about a value. Freedom to get intoxicated may be abridged for the public order (which might be characterized as other people's freedom to be left alone by drunks).

Yes you are cute answer theories to explain the colonization of the new world the last great habitable landmass to be occupied by humans focus on the bering land bridge, or beringia, which emerge by siberia and alaska the last ice age.

Answer/// absolute and unchanging laws;