Constitutional Amendment to Protect our Inalienable Rights

No civil right is inalienable. A civil right exists because of a contract, change or remove the contract and the right goes away. The right to become a U.S. citizen if you're born here is a civil right, it exists because we agreed on that and put it into law. Change or remove the law and the right is gone (or just commit treason).

I'm not sure what you mean by inviolable. I can't think of any right which is inviolable.




​

 

Shiva_TD, I have a question. Taxpayer posted this, "Change or remove the law and the right is gone (or just commit treason)."

Which reminded something I've done related, which heavily tested the US district court, and they failed.


In 2010 I disclosed my knowledge of treason pursuant to tit. 18, prt I, chapter 115, sect. 2382, misprision of treason to the US District court in Los Angeles.

On the first try I learned the district had created court rules requiring that judges could only read information filed with the court clerks.
I returned home and structured the disclosure in form acceptable to the criminal clerk for a filing called "IN REGARD: or IN RE:". It was filed in that office in the "Criminal Miscellaneous" file.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.disclosure.html

The judges promptly acted to conceal treason

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.civreassign.html

By reassigning what was filed as an IN RE: with the criminal clerk as a civil action against the parties who were concealing treason.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.civreassign.html

Without my authority.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.civreasign1.html

The judge created a situation where my disclosure of treason could be disposed of after 60 days if civil filing fees were unpaid.

The court created rules inconsistent with US code enabling the judge to violate US code and conceal treason.

This post is not to intended to start debate upon the content of the filing, only to gain opinion upon the level of illegality the court and judge are culpable of, and elicit suggested recourse in a matter of constitutional defense and effective disclosure of treason.

 

The US Constitution does not delegate any role or responsibility to Congress related to "standards" except when it comes to weights and measures (i.e. mass and volume). You're misreading the US Constitution and your beliefs are false.

 

"Civil Rights" refer to "Statutory Rights" and not "Inalienble Rights" and the two are completely different. A "Civil Right" granted by statutory law can most certainly violate the "Inalienable Rights" of the Person. I was just addressing the issue of land ownership on another forum where we have a "civil (statutory) right" right to own land in the United States that provides a perfect example.

The definition of (not the criteria for) an "inalienable right" per the dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inalienable+right

Based upon John Locke's arguments for the "natural right of property" related to land every individual has an equal "natural" (inalienable) right to own enough free land or free access to enough land to provide for their "survival and comfort" (with some caveats that I won't go into). Locke addresses this Right of Property in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm

The "natural (inalienable) right of property" to land is not transferrable based upon the definition of an "inalienable right" so a person cannot sell their "right of ownership to land" to someone else. Statutory law (civil law) allows the sale of the land but the land purchased does not come with the "natural right of ownership" that is not transferrable from one person to another. The person that purchases the land does not have a Right of Property to the land that belonged exclusively to the prior owner.

Anyone that has "statutory ownership of land" (a civil right in the United States) in excess of their personal need for survival and comfort is in violation of the Inalienable Rights of all other individuals in society.

 

First and foremost Taxpayer is incorrect as the inalienable (natural) rights of the person exist outside of government and statutory law and they are violated regardless of statutory law (and often by statutory law). For example we have laws against murder but murder (the violation of the Right to Life of the Person) still occurs in spite of the law. The law merely addresses the violation of the Inalienable Right after the violation occurs.

This thread is not about individual cases of adjudication and so I cannot comment on your specific issue and would be unqualified to do so. Talk to an attorney about it.

 

not at all, especially in Commerce, well regulated.

 

A right is just a feeling that you are due or owed something. Sure a right can exist outside of of government or agreement. That right though (like any debt you believe you're owed) doesn't do you much good, unless you can collect on it.

Some rights are guaranteed by other people. We usually express those promises with agreements (and constitutions/laws are just formal agreements). These are civil (or legal) rights.

Your right to be a citizen is provided to you by law. It's a civil right. And as such, it can be removed (alienated).





​

 

You confuse "regulation" with "standards" and they are not the same.

Of course the Interstate Commerce Clause has been highly distorted by Congress and the Courts where regulations affecting "intrastate commerce" have been imposed.

 

Just because "you believe something it owed" doesn't make it so. Whether enumerated or not in the US Constitution all Rights of the Person are protected from statutory infringement based upon the 9th Amendment (that sadly isn't enforced very well).

No, natural born citizenship cannot be revoked by statutory law. This was addressed in the case of the United States v Kim Wong Ark where his natural born citizenship would have been invalidated (removed and revoked) based upon statutory law. I would highly recommend that people read this Supreme Court decision because it addresses the "Inalienable Right of Citizenship" established by Jus Soli which is exactly what the founders of America were referring to in Article II that established "natural born citizenship" as a criteria for presidential office as well as the exact criteria established for natural born citizenship in the 14th Amendment (i.e. born in the United States... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof - or Jus Soli). The "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Citizenship" cannot be infringed upon by statutory laws under the US Constitution. The Supreme Court decision in US v Kim Wong Ark was that the provisions of US statutory law [169 U.S. 649, 677] that would have denied him of his "natural" (inalienable) Right of Citizenship were unconstitutional.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649

Of note there is nothing preventing the revocation of citizenship based upon "naturalization" as that is granted by statute and is not based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person. For example Ted Cruz and John McCain could both have their US citizenship revoked because they became US citizens based upon statutory laws of naturalization and not based upon the Right of Citizenship protected by the US Constitution.

 

Regulations must meet some Standard.

 

What does make it so?

If the constitution evaporated tomorrow, if all laws went with it, would you still have a right to life and liberty? If no one in the world but you believed you were due those things or offered to protect them would those rights cease to exist?

Beliefs are exactly what makes rights exist. Agreements with others who share your belief, contracts and constitutions to document or enforce those beliefs... these are just tools to guarantee or protect the rights we believe are important.




​

 

It is one reason I am so grateful for the most excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the convention with our federal Constitution.

 

Yes, as John Locke argued and the Declaration of Independence established the "Inalienable (natural) Rights of the Person" exist outside of statutory law. The US Constitution is "statutory law" as the Supreme Law of the Land in the United States.

That does not imply that our Inalienable (natural) Rights would not be violated and, in fact, the Declaration of Independence establishes that the very purpose for government to exist at all was predominately to protect our Inalienable Rights as a Person from being violated by other people if there was no "statutory law" established by government.

I don't know that "beliefs" can properly be discribed as being necessary for Inalienable Rights to exist. John Locke's arguments established that "natural (inalienable) rights" existed whether we believed in them or not. The very fact that we "exist" as a person inherently carries with it the "Inalienable Right of Self" which is the foundation for all Inalienable Rights of the Person. The very first criteria of an Inalienable Right is "that which is inherent in the person (self)" establishing that the existance of the "person" and not their beliefs is the foundation upon which Inalienable Rights are based.

The rest of the defining criteria for an "inalienable (natural) right" are caveats that impose limitation as opposed to being the basic foundation of the "inalienable rights" of the person.

It is like Locke's arguments for the "natural right of property" that also had the caveat that a person only had a right of property so long as "enough, and as good as" remained for all other people in society. That is a huge caveat when it comes to the land and natural resources from which all material objects originate and that caveat is ignored by our statutory laws of property in the United States.

 

James Madison, arguing on behalf of the Federalists, and Thomas Jefferson as a representative of the anti-federalists, deserve the lions share of the credit. While others certainly did contribute it was Madison and Jefferson that truly stand out.

Unfortunately the original Constitution was a compromise (acknowledging but not endorsing slavery) and it's never been truly enforced because of a lack of enforcement of the 9th Amendment that's purpose is to protect our unenumerated rights as a person. Had the 9th Amendment been enforced then slavery would have been abolished immediately because it is obviously a violation of the Right of Liberty of the Person. The 13th Amendment would never have been required if the 9th Amendment had been enforced. Had the 9th Amendment been enforced we would never have required the 15th and 19th Amendment that enunerated the Right to Vote for US citizens and if the 9th Amendment was enforced today then we would not have laws prohibiting non-citizens from voting (Rights, such as the Right to Vote, apply to all persons, citizens and non-citizens alike) nor would we have immigration quotas that violate the Right of Liberty.

The 9th Amendment is the most important Amendment to the US Constitution and it is also the least enforced of all of the Amendments to the US Constitution.

 

I guess it took an Information Age to let socialism catch up with capitalism.

 

We agree, that these rights don't exist because of the constitution. That the constitution simply identifies and protects the rights that Locke, Madison, Morris and others believed existed. They said that these rights, could not be separated from a man (like a man's beliefs cannot be taken from him). That these rights exist within a man. Which is where all his beliefs reside.

What makes these rights exist? If not law or agreement, then what? They exist (like a countries border) because we believe in them. The belief that you are owed the freedom and life you naturally came to have, it exists because... well because that's what you believe.

That these specific rights are in some way special, is based on the idea that most (or all) people naturally come to them. Natural rights are not an imposition on human belief by an outside force or abstract philosophy, it's an observation of what humans as a whole have come to believe and a prediction of what they will continue to value. And our constitution is an agreement (among other things) that we as a group will protect these specific rights for ourselves and for others, that naturally each of us believe we are due.







​

 

Excellent points. The people need to understand that the importance of property rights is fundamental to the rights of the citizen.
The ownership of land is the primary basis of self rule. Unfortunately the implementation of property tax changed the ownership of ones home from allodial to feudal and in such, changed the relationship of the citizen to the State from one of a free man, to a subject, who is no longer the king of his castle but a lowly renter. If a person is not the true owner of their property, then they are simply tenants on the States land, and have no place of ownership in which to be king.

 

The Rights exist regardless of whether they're violated or not and you keep missing that point.

A person only has a "Right to do Something" based upon their "Self" (i.e. this is the Inalienable Right of Self from which all other Inalienable Rights are derived). If all people limited their actions based upon their "Self" then they would violate no one else's Rights. It is only when a person commits an act that isn't based upon the "Self" that they violate the Rights of another person. Let me provide an example.

A person was born and raised in "Mexico City" and decides to walk from their to "Denver" (I'm referring to geographic locations). Nothing prevents them from doing this as they're not doing anything other than moving their "self" from one geographical location to another. What that person is doing by walking from "Mexico City" to "Denver" has absolutely nothing to do with any other person. It is their Right of Liberty based upon the "self" that they're exercising. No one has a "Right" to stop this person as that would not be based upon their "Right of Self" but instead would be an act of aggression against another person. That person walking from "Mexico City" to "Denver" has attempted to commit an "act of aggression" that would justify the "use of force in self-defense of an act of aggression (i.e. Protection of the Self).

It was that "Right of Liberty of the Self" that founders like Madison, Washington, and Jefferson were referring to when they all supported the Right of the Person to Immigrate between nations. Jefferson argued that even if 100% of the people of a nation agreed to limit this Right of Liberty the person had the Right to do whatever is necessary to exercise this Right of Liberty. In a very real sense Jefferson argued on the side of the "Illegal Immigrants" in the United States today believing their Right of Liberty superseded the authority of statutory law even if 100% of Americans supported that statutory law (which they don't). A person coming to the United State for peaceful purposes is not violating or infringing upon anyone else's Inalienable Rights and they are merely exercising their Inalienable Right of Liberty (that happens to be protected by the 9th Amendment which isn't being enforced related to our immigration laws).

Of course there were pragmatic problems related to a person only exercising their Right of Self that needed to be addressed such as being able to harvest that which nature provides for survival and John Locke addressed that in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter V, but we don't comply with Locke's arguements based upon "individual survival and comfort" related to the use of the natural resources upon which we all depend and jointly share ownership of. We continue to live under laws of "statutory ownership of property" based upon the economic philosophies established by of the Divine Right of Kings.

That is the real problem that I'd identify. Instead of people knowing and understanding the Inalienable Rights of the Person and basing their own actions upon them they act out of ignorance and, in doing so, exceed their authority to act based upon their Right of Self. In doing so, out of igonrance, they're violating the Right of Self of other individuals.

In short "Their beliefs are wrong" because they are uninformed and that is problematic.

 

Perhaps you missed couple of caveats related to the Right of Property as it relates to land.

An Inalienable Right is NOT transferrable so the Right of Property related to Land cannot be transferred from one person to another person. In short you cannot sell your Right of Property to land to another person. You can sell them the "Title" ("Title" to land isbased upon the Divine Right of Kings) but the title doesn't establish the Inalienable Right of Ownership because that is not transferrable.

Next is that the Right of Property to Land can only exist to the extent that it provides for the basic survival and comfort of the individual (or family unit). To provide an example let's say that a farmer and his family can provide for their basic survival and comfort with 40 acres of land. Under Locke's arguments (with one other caveat) they would be entitled to "own" that 40 acres. They're not entitled to own 500 acres simply because they have the ability through technology to farm 500 acres. As Locke argued, and I paraphrase, the ownership is based upon the sweat equity of the person and technology like farming equipment does not change the sweat equity of the person. The person is only "entitled to enough land to provide for their basic survival and comfort based upon their sweat equity" in the land.

The last caveat I'd mention related to the natural Right of Property as it relates to the land is that individuals only have a Right of Property related to land when there remains "enough, and as good as" free land for every other individual in society including both the "nomad" that lives directly from nature and the "settler" that lives of a specific piece of land that provides for their basic survival and comfort. This raises the pragmatic problem that we've exceeded the amount of free land necessary for all individuals to provide for their basic survival and comfort arguably because we allow the "selling of title to property" that doesn't include the Right of Property that is not transferrable.

The "natural (inalienable) rights of the person" are grossly misunderstood by most people because they simply accept the status quo as opposed to actually taking the time to understand what a "natural (inalienable) right of the person" really is. I fault our education system that promotes the "status quo" while disregarding an academic understanding of the Rights of the Person.

 

Socialism and capitalism, based upon their historical definitions and practices, both violate the Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property the Person.

 

Socialism merely requires sufficient social morals for free to achieve a secular and temporal, Commune of Heaven on Earth where men can be Angels and have no need for the Expense of Government.

 

That's a fascinating belief system. I don't want to get into a religious debate or disparage your philosophy. But this really seems to come down to just what you believe. You're referencing certain people's beliefs, the books they wrote to express those beliefs and maybe even laws they wrote that were consistent with their beliefs. None of that demonstrates the source of these rights is anything but belief.

It's kind of like arguing blue is the best color, because you believe it's the best color. You can show me a book that says green is better than red and blue is better than green, but that only shows it's author shares your belief and is consistent in his opinion. Saying that folks who believe red is the best color are uninformed and that "their beliefs are wrong" ... well, you're entitled to your opinion but that doesn't mean it's more than simply what you believe.

If all the books, laws, and constitutions that protected or advocated these rights evaporated tomorrow. If everyone in the world stopped believing in these rights, yourself included. Could you point to one thing that demonstrated their continued existence?





​

 

I never said the right to own land was inalienable. I also do not believe anyone is entitled to free land. I do believe once purchased, land like any other form of private property should be free of government encumbrance, as that encumbrance fundamentally changes the relationship between the citizen and the government. The citizens right is to own private property, to which the government has no claim.

 

Simplified you don't believe in the Inalienable Rights of the Person (which was the expressed foundation for the government of the United States) and many people don't. That doesn't mean that Inalienable Rights don't exist but simply that many people don't understand Inalienable Rights.

I would suggest that you actually read and try to understand John Locke's arguments related to the "natural (inalienable) right of property" though as you might learn something if you take the time to do that. You're arguments are based upon "title" to land and natural resources and that is based upon the "divine right of kings" that was rejected when the United States was founded (but continued under our laws of property). The divine right of kings violates the natural (inalienable) rights of the person.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm

 

This is a recipe for stasis and would be a disaster. By giving them so little wiggle room, each Justice would then become a dictator on the court and appointments will become the ONLY thing that matters for each President and Senate. This is highly impractical and would not protect any inalienable rights. In fact, it would have the opposite affect. You need to brush up on the true intent of the 9th amendment.