An UNALIENABLE Right

Both words were being used in 1776. John Adams was in charge of the final draft and used the word unalienable. And again, sir, the argument the left has made is that there is no difference; however, the challenge has not been met. NEVER, has any court ever ruled that the government grants unalienable Rights and NEVER has a ruling came down stating that unalienable Rights (or anything that is characterized as unalienable as per the Declaration of Independence) are subject to a government limitation.

Even in the Heller decision, they went in a round about way of admitting that there are Rights that are unlimited (a shy way of admitting they are unalienable.) Courts, however, are trying to usurp our Rights incrementally, but conning you into going along.

Either your unalienable Rights are just that (bestowed by a Creator and not subject to the jurisdiction of man made laws) OR the government grants you those Rights. Indisputably and irrefutably, the government has claimed to be the source of inalienable rights. Both words, if you READ THIS THREAD, have been interpreted differently both in legal dictionaries AND, more importantly, in court rulings.

“You have Rights antecedent to all earthly governments; Rights that
cannot he repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe.” (John Adams)

 

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

If you the word "inalienable" in the sentence then the meaning of the sentence is not changed one iota.

go here: www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/07/04/are-our-rights-inalienable-or-unalienable/?utm_term=.25de78adafff

"
Ushistory.org cites a footnote in “The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas” by Carl Lotus Becker, published 1922:

The Rough Draft reads “[inherent &] inalienable.” There is no indication that Congress changed “inalienable” to “unalienable”; but the latter form appears in the text in the rough Journal, in the corrected Journal, and in the parchment copy. John Adams, in making his copy of the Rough Draft, wrote ” unalienable.” Adams was one of the committee which supervised the printing of the text adopted by Congress, and it may have been at his suggestion that the change was made in printing. “Unalienable” may have been the more customary form in the eighteenth century."

go here: books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=inalienable%2Cunalienable&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cinalienable%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cunalienable%3B%2Cc0

It shows that the word "unalienable" was in far more common use than "inalienable" from 1700 to 1840. The use of "unalienable" peaked about the time of the Declaration of Independence (and it was a BIG peak).

*THAT* is why it is in the DoI and not "inalienable".

 

Very true, a Right cannot be capriciously taken away or watered down or in any way be infringed beyond the pale of lawlessness and crime prevention.
The dispute of inalienable vs unalienable is merely the leverage the Left wants as an excuse and power to abrogate our Rights.

 

Its not necessarily tyranny. There are competing rights.

Others (maybe you, its a long thread) claim that rights stop at the border of one person and another, but there are countless breaches of liberty that are required for orderly social function. Traffic lights for instance.

Lets take stopping at a red light when there is no other traffic. You're not protecting anyone, its just for the functionality of the state. Its a suppression of your liberty by the state with no justification or due process (of the individual instance).

Is it tyranny? The court would never rule so because that would wreak havoc across society.

So we have suppression of rights through due process at a macro level. We create laws that suppress or limit rights all the time, because as a society we simply do not have the resources to make judgements about all individual cases of human interaction.

This is especially the case in cities, where there are so many more instances of human interaction. This is why there is greater divergence of opinion between urban and country folk than between nationalities. You find gun nuts in the Austrian alps, and gun controllers in Vienna.

 

Competing rights? Please provide an example.

Stopping at a red light. How do you know nothing is coming until you stop, look, and listen? In addition, you do *not* have a RIGHT to drive on a public road. That is a *privilege*. That privilege comes with the responsibility to obey the rules of the road.

We create laws to protect our rights, not to suppress them. Or at least that *used* to be the reason for our laws. I would agree that our professional politicians have moved far from that ideal.

Rural vs City? That's really got more to do with the herd mentality than anything else. Far too many people in cities believe they are protected as being part of a herd. But that is an illusion. Look at South Chicago for proof. Those living in rural areas are far closer to to the natural state of an individual and have a far deeper understanding of natural law. You must protect yourself because no one else will.

 

That is irrelevant and immaterial. That was the best you could do?

All that matters in a court of law is how the courts have interpreted the law. EVERYTHING else is irrelevant and B.S. since it has ZERO LEGAL AUTHORITY. The opinions and definitions by wordsmiths and linguists is wholly irrelevant. Courts interpret the law and by the weight of the evidence... and the fact that YOU cannot take the challenge, my points stand.

You have part of the equation. The left are the ones that used the courts to interpret the words to mean different things AND THE FACT IS THE COURTS ARE NOW CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE THE SOURCE OF YOUR RIGHTS... BUT THEY CALL THOSE GOVERNMENT RIGHTS INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
.

 

OMG, your trolling never ceases. You don't have an unalienable Right to endanger the lives liberty or property of your fellow man. For that matter, the right to travel is a government granted "right" (which we would be better off to call a privilege.)

If people own a firearm, it does not endanger any of your Rights any more that the mere act of owning an automobile puts your fellow man in danger. It's only when YOUR ACTIONS violate or jeopardize the unalienable Rights of your fellow man does the government have a vested interest - and only to punish a person for the misuse of their Rights to their fellow man's detriment.

 

The trolls have had their time to make their points. They have failed... maybe for good reason.

Your unalienable Rights are bestowed upon you by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) OR they come from government. My critics talk out both sides of their mouths either out of ignorance OR they are on the left, playing the part of a double agent. None of them are bright enough to be CIA or FBI, so I'll let those who stumble across this thread to make up their own minds (a trait my critics cannot afford to allow you to do.)

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson

In the course of this thread we have witnessed that the courts have, unequivocally, interpreted the words unalienable and inalienable differently. If each of you are honest, if we take the next step here, because so many people have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to react to certain stimuli in a certain manner. There are those who have been programmed to believe that you must have limitations on your unalienable Rights in order to be safe. Then, again, all of you know what Benjamin Franklin said about those who trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.

The fact is, the more we have used government to resolve the question of Liberty, the less of it you and I have. It proves Jefferson's thesis. And, while the deniers are busy trying to do their best to disprove a legal point with layman terminology, I'm reminded of Bill Clinton trying to make a legal argument before the American people with his, "it all depends on what your interpretation of "is" is." It may have sounded irrational to the public, but I've seen many issues change on a dime due to a comma within a statute or the fact that some words have definitions holding special significance to the courts. Example: A ..."case found its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Jessica Gonzales’ claim was simple and eloquent: The police failed to follow mandates enacted by the Colorado legislature to arrest violators of restraining orders. But the Supreme Court disagreed. The court decided that Colorado really didn’t mean “must” when they used the word “shall.” The court concluded that “shall” really meant “maybe or maybe not.” In other words, the cops could choose to arrest, to secure a warrant, to go to dinner or to do nothing."

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/WhatDoesShallMean.pdf

Just as wordsmiths and linguists can tell you the meaning of words all day long, I can tell you how the courts apply the law and how they interpret it.

A lot of people are trying to dodge, duck, deflect and deny the fact that they do not believe in unalienable Rights. Too many people are addicted to government intervention. But, if the government is in the rights granting business, there is no a gun owner out there who is safe because if the courts have the power to limit your rights under and any pretext OR simply on a whim. The United States Supreme Court most assuredly does not have the authority to claim many of the powers that they have today. That is WHY we have a Second Amendment.

It is up to each and every one of you here to learn your Rights, apply them, and exhaust all of your legal and political nonviolent avenues of redress in order to protect your Rights and reclaim those illegally usurped. Deciding WHO bestowed upon you your unalienable Rights is the first order of business.

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1 : 8

 

That made zero sense.

I believe in Rights, that cannot be taken away by Government, Rights predate Law & Government and even speech and the written word.

The day Government begins to abrogate Civil Rights is the same day to disolve said Government and it's institutions and begin afresh and form a New Goverment and institutions and Laws etc....

I guess next we should argue,
Insane, Unsane,
Is there a difference ?
No......

 

Insane, unsane, anti gun activist..... lots different spellings

 

Dude, REALLY?

The words have been interpreted differently. That is a fact, not a fantasy. You've stated what YOU believe. Here again is that the courts have ruled:

"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)

17th-century Englishman John Locke, philosopher 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."

That is the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded. Show us any case citation that shows where unalienable Rights has been interpreted to allow the level of usurpation that occurs today. Show me one cite or please quit arguing with me.

Now, I've shown over 100 cites in support of my position. You cannot show even one in support of yours. The word inalienable is consistently used in the power grab.

If you believe differently and you are not currently at war with the government over the usurpation of power, you are wasting the time of every poster here with your fallacious and irrelevant objections and criticisms.

 

The courts have ruled that you can give up an inalienable right. There are no such rulings applied to unalienable Rights. I've posted the cites.

If you're right, there should be a an all out effort to bring this to the attention of the American people and address it post haste. If there is no difference in the two words, you are living under an unconstitutional government and have every duty to rebel.

The difference between you and I is that I am willing to concede that the government can regulate those rights they bestow upon us, but no authority over unalienable Rights. The two words are very similar, but they are NOT the same, exact thing according to court rulings.

 

This post needed to be repeated in light of the last twelve exchanges.

 

Most of the court opinions you offer have been made *after* 1850, when the word "inalienable" became much more popular than "unalienable". You are trying to argue that the use of the wod somehow depicts something more than popularity in common culture. But you can't. None of the rulings you offer state anything other than individual rights *are* individual rights and are are not bestowed upon us by government!

Consider this. Flying the flag *is* political speech. Yet some HOA's prevent you from performing this political speech. And how are those HOA's enforced you might ask? Under contract LAW. Contract LAW established by the government. Yet the Constitution says the government cannot pass laws that prevent us from indulging in speech, especially political speech.

And yet the Courts invariably side with the HOA association, saying the HOA *can* interfere with our free speech rights under contract law passed by the government that is not supposed to be able to do such under the Constitution.

Since the 1st Amendment was written at the same time that unalienable was in popular use, our rights under the Constitution should be considered unalienable, meaning we cannot forfeit them even if we want to by signing a private contract enforceable under government law.

So you see, it isn't the *word* that is important, it is the fact that government encroaches on our individual rights more and more every day that is important. It isn't the fact that they are unalienable or inalienable, it is the fact of the encroachment that is important.

I assure you that in 1786 if a landlord had tried to prevent a tenant from flying the American flag, the courts would not have accepted the fact that the tenant signed a contract enforceable under government law as an excuse that the tenant forfeited or gave away his individual rights under the Constitution!

 

Ha, wrong, HOA is established under voluntary agreement, not law, you were partially correct in saying contract law, even if you agree to something, State law may modify any agreement not considered binding if it violates any State or Federal preemptive legislation.

Example: a HOA agreement restricting properly installed Amateur radio antanaes is not binding because Federal law and regulations preempt such.

Reff BATF vs State laws regarding manufacture of Class lll firearms for personal and intrastate sales and use.

As far as free speech; Jehovah's Witnesses vs various States....

 

With all due respect, your post is pure, unadulterated, B.S. It is wholly inaccurate. The courts have interpreted the words differently. That is a FACT. It does not matter when the decisions are made, provided they are the most recent.

The words have been interpreted differently AND the court have said that inalienable rights can be forfeited. Just because layman dictionaries and so forth say the words are the same, they have not been treated the same. Now, I've cited the differences over a hundred times. No amount of political jockeying is going to change the bottom line:

IF you believe that the words are the same, you ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE A NATURAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Argue all you want; however, the characteristics of an unalienable Right is that it is not subject to forfeiture; not granted by the government; that the possessor cannot consent to giving up the Right.

When it comes to inalienable rights, the courts have ruled that you CAN consent to their forfeiture (I've cited many cases to prove that point.) When it comes to inalienable rights, the courts have ruled that those are government granted rights. When it comes to inalienable rights, the courts have ruled that they CAN limit them.

Even in the Heller decision, the courts danced around this issue. Read the ruling carefully:

" Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

There is a stark admission. If "most" rights are not unlimited, then SOME "rights' are unlimited.

The left would argue that the First Amendment is unlimited. Porn, cursing, calling out politicians, etc. is basically unlimited...and, even you might the left's position on the First Amendment. Here. IF there are unlimited Rights, then the Freedom of the Press, Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Religion are unlimited. Both the left and the right agree on this point.

My point is, the courts had it wrong. IF there are unlimited Rights (and even the United States Supreme Court has said there are) then we should be able to define them AND tell you why they are unalienable. IF the First Amendment is an unalienable Right, then so is the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights was passed as one Bill / one Law. The Bill of Rights is NOT a limitation on the citizenry; it is a limitation on the government.

Now, the words unalienable and inalienable have been interpreted differently. Our objective OUGHT TO BE to bring that to the attention of an understanding Supreme Court. They could then reverse the notion that the government should be involved in over-ruling tyrannical government by making sure NOBODY ever mistakes the many Supreme Court rulings relative to inalienable rights for unalienable Rights. You only have two other choices:

* Allow the courts and legislatures to use that word inalienable to gut the Constitution and continue the charade (admitting you have no natural, unalienable Rights OR rebel against the current laws that have usurped the Rights of the people. I'm giving you a judicial remedy and failure to accept it means that YOU are cutting yourself out of an opportunity.

If you think that inalienable Rights are somehow equal to unalienable ones, you have already given away your Right to keep and bear Arms.

 

Competing rights to life in a conflict. An assailant has a right to life, which means that victim's actions of self defense must be reasonable in the circumstances.
You can have constructive "self-defense" of a third party, whereby you kill someone that is innocent to protect someone else that is also innocent.

And if there's noone there? You cannot proceed if the light is red. There are rules like that all over the place,

I have a more cynical view, that laws are created to protect existing power structures. But that's OK for me because the power structure is mostly benevolent to me due to democracy.

Yeah, rural life tends to bring out independence. I grew up in a proto-town which didn't even have sealed roads, let alone a reasonable expectation of law enforcement, so I get it. I also understand the city life where co-reliance is essential because mistrust is ever-present.

Modern society does have a problem in trying to make the same laws for the country as for the city. But they are very different societies.

 

ROFL! You say I am wrong and then go on to state EXACTLY what I stated! Stop and think before you say someone is wrong!

 

This is an argumentative fallacy called "Circular Reasoning". Something is true because it is true.

Again, in the cases you reference the word used is irrelevant. What is relevant is the context of the case. Which you conveniently ignore.

 

I ignore NOTHING. You obviously do, however, UNLESS you've thrown in the towel and given up.

The two words have been interpreted differently. There's nothing you can do now except start that liberal chickensqueeze "Circular Reasoning," and next it will be logical fallacy, straw man, and all the other emotion laden buzz words professional board posters use in order to get away from the facts.

The facts are that inalienable rights have been interpreted so as to mean they can be forfeited; inalienable rights are government granted rights; inalienable rights are limited. The legal definitions are nuanced differently.

The United States Supreme Court, even if they got a constitutionalist majority, could not, in any way, shape, fashion or form restore our constitutional rights if they used your theory of law. Judicial activism is what got us into the mess we're in today. So, how do we restore constitutional Liberty? Admit that the two words are different in a legal context and demand the restoration of our unalienable Rights.

 

The assailant does not have a right to assault. If he dies from self-defense of the assaulted then that is just a by-product of his violation of someone else's rights, not a result of someone violating his rights.

Uh, this case is presented specifically in all concealed carry classes. If you kill an innocent bystander even during self-defense you are *NOT* protected. If your bullet travels clear through the assailant and kills someone you may still be charged with criminal negligence and are certainly subject to civil suit alleging wrongful death.

This is not truly a violation of your rights. A temporary delay in your movement to serve public safety at all times is a the government intruding as little as possible on your rights. In my state, if the red light doesn't change in a reasonable amount of time you *can* proceed against a red light. You just need to be sure you can argue your case concerning "reasonable".

I believe in what John Locke wrote and what the Declaration of Independence states - that governments are instituted to secure our rights. What government actually does, however, falls far short of the ideal in many cases.

Yep. The town where I grew up was one mile long, from the CO-OP to the Baptist church. And was less than a mile wide at it's longest point. The only law enforcement around was the county Sheriff - no deputies - and the Highway Patrolman assigned to the county. I could walk to some of my jobs in the hayfields and the local dairy! That way of life is fast disappearing!

Do you suppose Hillary understands that yet?

 

The *words* have not been interpreted differently. Decisions have been differently because of the merits of the cases, that's all. Not a single case you have provided says in the court's opinion that the words "unalienable" and "inalienable" mean different things. Not one. If the courts considered the two words to have different meanings then in 220 years you would expect at least ONE case to specifically state that "unalienable" and "inalienable" mean two different things. Yet none do.

 

The words have been interpreted differently. NO, the courts did not compare the words, but they did say that they are different, and if I agreed with you we would have to be at war today OR quit having this conversation.

I don't think I understand your need to be stubborn, but the courts have said that inalienable rights are given by the government; they are limited; that you can forfeit them. These are NOT characteristics of unalienable Rights. That is undeniable, irrefutable and accurate.

Furthermore, the courts have NEVER attributed the word unalienable to the limiting characteristics of inalienable rights. You cannot prove otherwise, so like the board trolls, not being able to cite a single, solitary federal case where unalienable Rights are limited / interpreted like inalienable rights, YOU FAIL.

Thank you for your input, but you are factually WRONG.

 

And I think that would be a really great world in theory. Its like communism. The problem is not with the theory, its with the people.

People that run for office are people that want power. They're simply not there to be nice about your rights. You have to fight, all the time, for your rights.

The justification of government is to protect people. From who? Other governments (or local warlords or criminal gangs) who for some reason would be worse than this government, as demonstrated by being weaker than this government. Government is just very organized crime.

Yeah

No I very much doubt she understands at all. I think the dissociation of the urban from the rural is so complete that there is virtually no mutual understanding at all anymore.

For instance, rural people really don't understand the point of policing politically correct "micro aggressions". But micro-aggressions accumulate and coalesce in urban communities, like snow on a mountain, so that an unfortunate bang can trigger a devastating avalanche.

Hillary despises and condescends to the rural, because she doesn't understand that they consider just about everything she deems important is completely irrelevant. The rural can pick that up and hate her back.

But I don't think much of Trump either. A charlatan like that wouldn't survive two weeks in the same town. A classic snake oil salesman, he needs to be in NY so he can live without any friends.

Problem is a lot of people went out on a limb for him (because he did actively seek their vote which is pretty unusual these days) to the extent that their personal integrity is tied to the mast of his ship.

The "urban" have to make space available for them to back down with respect, but all they see is the chance to shriek "I told you so" to the "country" nemesis.

 

No, the *words* have not been interpreted differently. Each of the cases you have presented have been decided on the facts of the case and not on the difference between "unalienable" and "inalienable". If the justices were to decide the case on the words meaning different things then they would have to have included that difference in their opinions in order to justify the opinions.

In fact, I can find no case where *both* words even appear! If they were to mean different things under the law then you would expect to find at least one instance where both appear in an opinion with different contexts associated with each. As I said that just doesn't appear to be the case.

The conclusion is that some justices have used one word and other justices have used the other word. Just as the usage graph I gave you showed. Before 1850, the word "unalienable" was hugely possible, after 1850 the pendulum swung to the word "inalienable".