An UNALIENABLE Right

That is a false statement and would preclude
a trial by a jury of ones peers on a presumption of guilt, not innocense.
You are presumably innocent until proven guilty.

 

MORE PROOF FOR THOSE TROLLING THIS THREAD

“For the principle aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature.”

“The public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual's private rights.”

“The principle view of human law is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute.”

-- William Blackstone, Authority on English Law

"The US academic Robert Ferguson notes that "all our formative documents – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the seminal decisions of the Supreme Court under John Marshall – were drafted by attorneys steeped in Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. So much was this the case that the Commentaries rank second only to the Bible as a literary and intellectual influence on the history of American institutions".[108] Even today, the Commentaries are cited in Supreme Court decisions between 10 and 12 times a year"

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted...."
BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

"...the liberty of conscience, and of the press, cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States.' New York, p. 328, 'That the freedom of the press ought not to be violated or restrained.' After the submission of the amendments, Rhode Island ratified and declared, pp. 334, 335, 'IV. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not by force and violence; and therefore all men have a natural, equal, and unalienable right to the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others. ... XVI. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments. That freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.'
--JONES v. CITY OF OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

"17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. Preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property was claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."[15] Another 17th-century Englishman, John Lilburne (known as Freeborn John), who came into conflict with both the monarchy of King Charles I and the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell governed republic, argued for level human basic rights he called "freeborn rights" which he defined as being rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law."

"The key word is alien. This word is founded on lien, the etymological root of which is Anglo-French lien, loyen bond, restraint, from Latin ligamen, from ligare to bind.

Thus if lien means to bond or bind, then its converse connotation means to undo that bond; hence alienate one aspect or element from its other(s). Where a part cannot possibly be split, divorced or separated, then the bond is undoable, unable to be broken. One property is completely un-able to be alienated from its others, hence the word, unalienable, is utilised to indicate that the bond is unable to be severed by any means whatsoever.

What then is meant by the word inalienable? Its most simple description is not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor. However, not subject to being taken away, is vastly different from being unable to be severed by any means whatsoever."

http://www.naturalelaw.com/natural-law/rights-unalienable.html


"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Thomas Jefferson



See these links as well:

http://unalienable.com/unalien.htm

http://rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/law/unalienable_vs_inalienable.php

http://politicaloutcast.com/are-natural-rights-natural-or-right/

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2011/tle642-20111030-07.html

The United States Supreme Court opinion of their role:

"The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

Those denying the meaning of unalienable Rights and inalienable rights are p!ssing away your Rights on the installment plan. The real question is why are they doing it?

 

A unalienable right is no more corporeal than is a scientific theory. However, both are based on logic and reason and presupposing certain ideas. With the scientific method, it is observing, hypothesizing, and testing. With unalienable rights, it is based on the observation of certain universal moral behaviors (don't kill, don't steal) and then establishing a framework for political interactions between persons such that all persons are treated equally under law and no person has the rightful privilege to initiate aggression against another.

 

I don't know if Latherty is merely ignorant OR that he has an agenda, but it keeps boiling down to a presupposition about law. Our forefathers were influenced by people like Blackstone and Locke. They truly believed in inherent and unalienable Rights.

IF we buy Latherty's premise, there is no such thing as unalienable Rights; therefore, we have to buy into the Hobbesian view (which is what Latherty seems to embrace - even if unwittingly) that forces him to argue for inalienable rights. By now, Latherty should understand, presuming he accesses, reads and understands the links, one may forfeit an inalienable Right, but not an unalienable one.

The inalienable rights view ultimately dismisses any Right to self defense. THAT is one of its most objectionable features AND the primary reason that a Supreme Court that wants to sell you their "living Constitution" view is all too happy to take your Rights - even if it is done incrementally. All I can tell you is that the people who hate guns and Freedom / Liberty make much ado and are overly - stubborn about whether you have unalienable Rights under the Bill of Rights or inalienable rights as defined in case law. There is a reason for their stubbornness and it behooves all of us to learn the facts.

 

Huh? How is a legal defense against a prosecution precluding trial? If the defense is patently robust it would never even go to trial.

 

That's a very long post. Well done.
Is there a point to it?

You still have not supported your claimed distinction between unalienable and inalienable.

And further, you have substantiated my point that "alienation" refers to the ability to separate from the person, and doesn't mean the right cannot be suppressed or defeated.

 

That won't change what they say. There is no support for your assertion that unalienable and inalienable have any different legal meaning, or in fact any difference in meaning in ordinary use either.

 

Those moral behaviors are not universal. The Vikings, for instance, had quite a different view about killing and stealing.

So unlike a scientific principle which can be proved by testing and replication, the moral code upon which "unalienable rights" were identified vary between cultures and shift within them. Western hegemony has lead us to feel that these principles are "universal", but even as the Constitution was written those very authors denied these rights to their "own" slaves. If these rights both existed and were "unalienable", such slave ownership would have been impossible. QED.

 

Hundreds of legal authorities disagree with you. Stop trolling son. Many here have reading skills way beyond what you suspect.

 

Don't pretend to be an idiot. Of course the point has been proven and most, if not all of the founding fathers disagree with you.

 

I'm beginning to suspect that you are Vegas Giants under a different name. You don't ever put forth your own position, you only claim that other people are wrong despite many links to the opposite.

Son, when legal authorities, legal researchers, attorneys, judges, historians, and highly paid commentators from the MSM acknowledge a point of contention, then a bona fide dispute exists.

You keep claiming that the point has not been made when even the most liberal legalists admit that this issue is not as cut and dried as you claim. Now, I've tolerated your B.S. to a point, but you just earned the same treatment we give to other trolls. I'll give you a challenge. If you fail, this "debate" is over. Your claims are about to be shattered. First, I'll reiterate a point and then give you a challenge. Then this is OVER.

History records that there was a strong contention between whether to use the word inalienable or unalienable in the Declaration of Independence. John Adams, the second president of the United States, was in charge of the final draft of the Declaration of Independence. He used the word unalienable. To make sure that everybody understands Adams intent, Adams himself expressed his feelings best with this statement:

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe" -- John Adams.

In the course of this thread, my links will lead you to over one hundred court cases interpreting the word inalienable and its undisputed meaning is that it can be restrained by human laws. Even the definition of the word inalienable means that you can forfeit the Right (clearly indicating it can be repealed.) No such ruling has ever been applied to the word unalienable.

So, here is the challenge:

IF Lathery can produce one, single, solitary court case citation wherein any court at the federal level has stated that an unalienable Right is subject to limitation or forfeiture (except for punishment for a crime - and then such forfeiture is only constitutional for the duration of the sentence in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic such as ours) he will own this thread. If, he cannot, will have to walk away knowing that he has been blowing smoke up your a**. I have shown that every time the courts limit your Rights, they use the word inalienable.

 

Haven't you just answered your own question?
Due process allows for "unalienable" rights to be defeated.

But in any event, would you please provide a list of the rights that you consider to be "unalienable" as opposed to "inalienable"? Then we can look at some case law...

 

We already have listed unalienable Rights AND what the courts ruled. If you can't answer the question, which you haven't, you FAIL.

You're not reading the links and the material provided. Everything I've talked about defined unalienable Rights and how they differ from inalienable ones.

Still waiting for you to take the challenge and prove your point. You can't, however.

 

I will go one step further, and state what has been stated here by others many times before.

We as humans have Rights that cannot be taken away by any entity, sure in the strictist sense,
Governments abridge our Rights constantly in the name of Public safety, however, our basic Rights are sacrosanct, and not to be violated or abrogated.

The Right of defense is one such Right, it does not end at a door post or city limit or State border.

You have a Right to defend yourself with firearms and without infringements or restrictions.

 

Happy to have a look but I'm not wasting my time if you're just going to say that some right or another is inalienable rather than unalienable. Put your balls in the drawer and name those rights that are unalienable and not inalienable.

 

while he is doing that-why don't you tell us what "shall not be infringed" means to you

thanks

 

Dude, quit reposting the same thing over and over. We've already had the discussion. You were challenged and you FAILED.

Stuff your ego in a sack, Jack and move on. Any idiot with any appreciable degree of intelligence can read this thread and see that we've sufficiently covered unalienable Rights, INCLUDING ALL THE BASIC UNALIENABLE RIGHTS .READ THE FRICKING THREAD ALREADY.

You were challenged; you failed to meet it.

 

What am I supposed to be doing that I've not already done? When I didn't want to put up endless paragraphs, I left Latherty numerous links that expounded on the sentiment.

Latherty is trolling the thread, and to what end, remains a mystery. Despite overwhelming statements by the founders of this country AND endless court citations, this guy cannot even stipulate to reality.

 

You need go no further than the ignore function to take care of that.

 

He neither read nor understood this thread... and he had a classic FAIL by not being able to take the challenge. 160 some odd posts later, we can finally move a little farther.

So, the basic premise is that unalienable Rights are bestowed upon us by a Creator (our God, whomever we deem that to be) and are above the reach of government except as punishment for a crime - and then only for the specified period of time as the sentence lasts.

The children who attempt to prove there is no such thing as unalienable Rights are not, in my opinion, as dangerous as those who claim to believe in for such things as gun ownership without realizing that all men are entitled to these unalienable Rights and when we attempt to empower the federal government to act in one area of Rights, they automatically infringe on all your Rights.

We have to accept that reality AND work within those parameters in order to resolve all our issues. AND, all of you know that we could reduce firearms deaths without gun control, taking all the talking points away from the left. That was the reason for this thread and I wish all of you following this thread would become activists, doing what you can to promote our unalienable Rights and lower the rate of firearm violence without gun control.

 

Humm
This sounds like unalienable rights are part a political contract
And political contracts by their nature are subject to revision

I could be be wrong, but have frequently understood people to assert that "unalienable rights" are part of some pre existent natural law... and that the word "unalienable" excludes these rights from depending upon the constitution... which is different than what you are saying

Yes, it all has to do with laws and the social contract On which our nation was founded

Clearly they can and do infringe as Japanese Americans discovered

Good luck with that one... but hopefully that fantasy provides some comfort

 

...
it never occurred to me
Thanx for the advice

 

<<MOD EDIT - Rule 4 - Removed Flamebaitng>> Not only have your criticisms been asked ansd answered, what you have put on this thread is absolute B.S.

1) The only way the U.S. Constitution can be revised is via constitutional amendments - NOT popularity contests

2) <<Rule 4 - Removed Flamebaiting>> I have cited the law many times to show that unalienable Rights are beyond both the jurisdiction of the state and federal government. Furthermore, I have cited many authorities - one after another showing that unalienable Rights preexisted long before the Constitution

3) Just as other people may try to infringe on your Rights, the government may do so as well. The founding fathers and those upholding their efforts left us many guideposts for this:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

We have Rights and a guarantee that government will protect them. But, just like the people you buy retail products from, the guarantors do not want to do their job at times AND people, maybe like you, do not want the burden of enforcing those Rights when the normal process doesn't yield results. You will laugh at me and make excuses, but you will have to spend the rest of your life dismissing the words of the men who fought, bled and died in order for you to live free. You won't come here and try to misrepresent me and get a free ride.

 

So you can't identify a right that is unalienable but not inalienable.

I'm afraid you have just disproved your entire case.

 

You are the only person in America that cannot accept reality. You failed the challenge. NOTHING you can put on this board will alter the fact that YOU FAILED. YOU TAPPED OUT.

You're talking absolute bullsh!+ son. NOBODY buys it... not even you. The moderators here have chosen to allow you to troll me, but the fact is, you haven't brought a damn thing to the table to prove your point and I have put well over 100 case citations on this board to prove mine. You got defeated. I put forth a challenge and you tapped out. Now, you're back??? Why? Are you a glutton for punishment? Don't you understand that we all know who you really are and that you don't have anything more than an attempt to badger people and screw with them? You have no facts and you cannot accept a simple challenge? You're going nowhere, but the fact is you have to come here every day to feed your ego.

The problem is, I own you. Everybody that reads this thread is learning something different (no matter what they knew before) and you're helping them by pushing me.

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienableand which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

Albert Gallatin (7 Oct. 1789) Gallatin was highly regarded by both Jefferson and Madison and served under both as Treasury Secretary, not to mention his stints in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Many writers, researchers, historians, legal scholars and constitutionalists believe that the Bill of Rights is the codification of the Declaration of Independence. One such person, Elvin T. Lim, in a book entitled A Lover's Quarrel: The Two Foundings and American Political Development wrote:

"..either the covenantal grant of powers of the Second Founding is the first American deed, or the prior articulation of the states sovereignty in the Declaration of Independence -later codified in the Bill of Rights..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=OucVBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT20&lpg=PT20&dq=did+the+bill+of+rights+codify+the+declaration+of+independence&source=bl&ots=ViHNAx_C29&sig=RA0dKYcCZpMiEsjaQmobLj51MQk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi00bqPx5fUAhXCeCYKHTGhAi4Q6AEIWDAI#v=onepage&q=did the bill of rights codify the declaration of independence&f=false

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."

We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his naturalright of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v. State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

Absolute? A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it??? It's above the law? Sure sounds unalienable to me.

"Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE.Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101. {my own note - you cannot consent to give up an unalienable Right}

You cannot consent to giving up an unalienable Right. YOU CAN FORFEIT AN INalienable right.

You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent (now that's an inalienable right.)

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)