Human rights are supposed to be fundamental, at least according to the United States Constitution, a document which, along with the Bill of Rights, dictates the rights of the man as they are guaranteed by this law. legendary piece of paper and cannot be removed without good reason, even though "fair" can have completely different definitions for everyone. The main problem with this statement is that if the rights themselves are fundamental, and yet are also afforded to the individual, how did they exist and do they exist as a function of human existence? This question is raised in unique contexts by Michel Foucault and Barbara Johnson in their individual critiques through the construction of paradoxes that illustrate the confusing nature of law as it relates to power and truth. Foucault establishes a circular paradox regarding truth, law and power as a system of interaction that functions to decipher the structure in which they coexist while Johnson formulates his position using the apostrophe to show the polar positions of abortion regarding rights and power. Their use of paradox highlights the construction of their arguments while highlighting their ideas by comparing them to the extreme critiques of their respective poles, thus allowing them to play with the poles without having to follow the same lines. Michael Foucault constructs his paradoxical argument through the use of contradictory sentences in order to show the difficulty of understanding his argument. Foucault would prefer to move from generality to example and then back to a distinct generality and example in order to show that this argument requires a complex understanding of political, economic, and social theory in order to deconstruct it. Regarding power over others, because in the middle of the article I think a dangerous and controversial topic is skirted. While Foucault attempts to overflow from theory into language in order to over-saturate the concept of power. To show the already flawed approaches, Johnson breaks down the question of power and places it in language. These contrasting views demonstrate the difficulties of establishing a concrete and stagnant definition of power as it relates to the individual. We must therefore understand that power is a constantly evolving entity, housed in language, economic discourse and many other exciting places. . Power and the right to have it are paradoxical issues because each line of thought presents a counterpoint of equal validity, requiring one to attempt to make a decision that cannot be made precisely. Power as a paradox exists because power is a paradox, constructed through language and rhetoric..