An UNALIENABLE Right

You are misrepresenting this issue and outright lying. AFTER 1850 the word inalienable was used to characterize those rights that are alienable IF the possessor of such rights consents. That, sir, is not, indicative of the original intent of unalienable Rights NOR does it fit the definition ascribed to such.

It is agreed that the courts have not sat down and directly stated that the two words are different, but if you're honest, you have read that these two words have been described in similar terms, but the definitions are clearly different. There is not a damn thing you can do about that FACT.

 

I am not misrepresenting anything nor am I lying.

The fact is that you cannot show an opinion where both words were used in different contexts or an opinion where the words are stated to have different meanings.

And the fact is that the cases you mention were established based on the facts of the case, none of which had to do with the difference in meaning between unalienable and inalienable. As nearly as I can determine, there aren't any briefs or arguments from any side in any case you mention that even implies that the justices need to consider a difference in meaning between the two.

Most people would assume that if the two words had different meanings that *somewhere*, in some brief, argument, or opinion, someone would have stated the need to consider "inalienable" to be different in meaning than "unalienable". And yet I can find *nothing* that even hints at that.

All you have to offer than in some cases where the justices ruled against individual rights that they used the word inalienable instead of unalienable. The fact that they used "inalienable" has nothing to do with it being different than "unalienable" in meaning. They didn't rule against individual rights because some rights are inalienable instead of unalienable but because they took the side of government against the rights of individuals.

 

No sir, I did not offer one opinion... I offered over ONE HUNDRED definitions, rulings, opinions from lawyers, legal researchers, historians, judges and legal commentators.Nothing you can do will alter that fact.

The only thing, sir, you have offered is your opinion and the opinions of laymen. So, you sit on your a** with this simplistic view, arguing with people when you have NO direct experience in law, accepting an erroneous proposition that government grants rights. WTH?

If what you say is true and presupposing you give a rat's a** about the future of this country, one would expect that you would be on a legal team, trying to make a difference since we would indisputably be living under a tyrannical government that had sh!+canned the entire Constitution.

Instead, people are losing their Rights under the installment plan because poseurs, liars, and people for the far left have hoodwinked the people. Whether you agree or not, like it or not, you have not shown where ANY legal authority has applied the words unalienable and inalienable interchangeably. I have proven over and over and over again that the two words have been treated separately and when they have been defined by legal authorities, a different definition follows both of them.

You have become the second person trying to troll this thread without a single, solitary fact to back you up. You love to argue for the sake of arguing. If you believe the swill you spew your time would be better spent fighting an illegal government unless you're in favor of being ruled by an illegal / de facto government that does not recognize unalienable Rights. So far, the government has been silent, ruling and defining only inalienable rights - WHICH DO NOT SHARE THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

 

if this was true, the Constitution would not have allowed slavery.

 

How many slaves were murdered by their owners?
Did you finally get over asking me the same question about taxes?

 

many.

too many.

and yet the Constitution did not protect slaves from abuse, rape, or even murder.

 

Cite your sources

 

3/5ths compromise, which codified the legality of slavery.

 

That don't prove that people were murdered by their slave owners.

 

no, but its a fact that slave owners tortured, raped, and murdered their "property" aka slaves

 

With not a single fact you proclaim something to be true. You're always bucking for a fight with an empty gun.

 

In 1717 Maryland law provided that slaves were not entitled to a jury trial for a misdemeanor, and empowered county judges to impose a punishment of up to 40 lashes.[41] In 1729, the colony passed a law permitting punishment for slaves including hanging, decapitation, and cutting the body into four quarters for public display.[27]

In 1740, South Carolina passed a law prohibiting cruelty to slaves; however, slaves could still be killed under some circumstances. The anti-cruelty law prohibited cutting out the tongue, putting out the eye, castration, scalding, burning and amputating limbs, but permitted whipping, beating, putting in irons and imprisonment.[42]

In 1852, Utah passed the Act in Relation to Service, which provided several protections for slaves. They were freed if the slave owner was found guilty of cruelty or abuse, or neglect to feed, clothe, or shelter the slave, or if there were any sexual intercourse between the master and the slave.[43] The definition of cruelty was vague and hard to enforce, and in practice, slaves received similar treatment to those in the South.[44]

• Virginia, 1705 – "If any slave resists his master... correcting such a slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction... the master shall be free of all punishment... as if such accident never happened."
• South Carolina, 1712 – "Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That no master, mistress, overseer, or other person whatsoever, that hath the care and charge of any negro or slave, shall give their negroes and other slaves leave... to go out of their plantations.... Every slave hereafter out of his master's plantation, without a ticket, or leave in writing, from his master... shall be whipped...."
• Louisiana, 1724 – "The slave who, having struck his master, his mistress, or the husband of his mistress, or their children, shall have produced a bruise, or the shedding of blood in the face, shall suffer capital punishment."

 

South Carolina established its slave code in 1712, based on the 1688 English slave code employed in Barbados. The South Carolina slave code served as the model for other colonies in North America. In 1770, Georgia adopted the South Carolina slave code, and Florida adopted the Georgia code.[4] The 1712 South Carolina slave code included provisions such as:[4]

• Slaves were forbidden to leave the owner's property unless they were accompanied by a white person or had permission. If a slave leaves the owner's property without permission, "every white person" is required to chastise such slaves.
• Any slave attempting to run away and leave the colony (later the state) receives the death penalty.
• Any slave who evades capture for 20 days or more is to be publicly whipped for the first offense, branded with the letter R on the right cheek for the second offense, and lose one ear if absent for 30 days for the third offense, and castrated for the fourth offense.
• Owners refusing to abide by the slave code are fined and forfeit ownership of their slaves.
• Slave homes are to be searched every two weeks for weapons or stolen goods. Punishment for violations escalates to include loss of ear, branding, and nose-slitting (for the fourth offense, death)
• No slave is allowed to work for pay; plant corn, peas or rice; keep hogs, cattle, or horses; own or operate a boat; buy or sell; to wear clothes finer than 'Negro cloth.'

 

The slave codes of the tobacco colonies (Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia) were modeled on the Virginia code, which was initially established in 1667.[4] The 1682 Virginia code included the following provisions:[6]

• Slaves were prohibited from possessing weapons.
• Slaves were prohibited from leaving their owner's plantations without permission.
• Slaves were prohibited from lifting a hand against a white person even in self-defense.
• A runaway slave refusing to surrender could be killed without penalty.

 

How many slaves were killed by their masters? AND, did it not require CAUSE to inflict death?

 

What does that prove?

 

slaves could be "accidentally" killed if they were being beaten for bad behavior.

slaves could be killed if they defended themselves against assault by their master.

slaves who escaped, could be killed if they refuse to surrender

 

What's your point? People can be killed for cause today. You still did not answer the question.

 

yeah, but slaves could be killed for being disobedient and running away.

and the Constitution allowed this up until 14th Amendment

 

And people can be killed for cause today. What is your freaking point? And you still haven't answered my question. That is the freaking reason I don't want to interact with you.

 

in what universe is "disobedience" legitimate cause to kill a person?

in what universe is "fleeing slavery" legitimate cause to kill a person?

in what universe is it legal to kill a black person because he defends himself against attack by a white person?