Human rights are presumably fundamental, at least in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, a document which, together with the Bill of Rights, dictates human rights as guaranteed by it legendary piece of paper and cannot be removed without just cause, even if “just” can have completely different definitions for each one. The main problem with this statement is that if the rights themselves are fundamental, and yet are also granted to the individual, how did they arise and how do they exist as a function of human existence. This question is raised in unique contexts by both Michel Foucault and Barbara Johnson in their individual critiques through the construction of paradoxes that exemplify the confusing nature of law regarding power and truth. Foucault establishes a circular paradox regarding truth, law and power as a system of interaction that works to decipher the structure in which they coexist while Johnson formulates his position through the use of the apostrophe to show the polar positions of abortion for regarding rights and power. energy. Their use of paradox highlights the construction of their arguments while displaying their ideas by comparing them to extreme criticisms at their respective poles, thus allowing them to play outside the poles without having to align themselves on the same lines. Michael Foucault constructs his paradoxical argument through the use of contradictory sentences to show the difficulty in understanding his argument. Foucault would prefer to move from generality to example and then back to a separate generality and example to demonstrate that this topic requires a complex understanding of political, economic and social theory to deconstruct it. In relation to power over others as... half of the document... a dangerous and controversial topic is believed to be circumvented. While Foucault attempts to overflow theory into language to oversaturate the concept of power To show the already misleading approaches to it, Johnson breaks down the question of power and places it within language. These contrasting views show the difficulties in establishing a concrete and stagnant definition of power as it pertains to the individual, and therefore one must understand that power is an ever-evolving entity, encapsulated in language, economic discourse and many other interesting places. . Power and the right to have it are paradoxical issues because each way of thinking shows a counterpoint of equal validity, forcing one to attempt to make a decision that cannot be made precisely. Power as paradox exists because power is a paradox, created through language and rhetoric.