I'm not sure there's such a thing as an "inalienable right"

Mar 2018
1,071
189
Grayson
#11
AND if a person doesn't believe in God, can they still have unalienable rights? If a person doesn't believe in God then obviously they don't have a Creator?
See how much I love discussing "stuff" with you, Nat.
Unalienable Rights are presumed to have been given by your Creator (whomever or whatever you believe that to be.) There is NOTHING in the Declaration of Independence that insinuates those Rights only belong to any given set of people. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, not the people AND the rulings of the United States Supreme Court acknowledge that unalienable Rights existed before the government did and unalienable Rights are above the law.

The left, seizing on semantics were instrumental in inserting the word term "inalienable rights" in an effort to confuse the people into buying that living Constitution B.S. The reality is, government gives / grants you "inalienable rights; " you are born with unalienable Rights. Radicals hoping to control the discussion aren't stupid. They know the distinction and con the right wing into adopting their argument - which is why the right cannot win this as a debate. In everyday language the two terms sound like synonyms; in law, they have been interpreted in a very different way.
 
Mar 2018
1,071
189
Grayson
#12
We only have rights to the extent that the government recognizes them. In a democracy at least in theory that government is of by and for the people so society as a whole in some way recognizes them though that seems to be less and less true every turn of the worm.
The United States is a Republic.
 
Dec 2015
17,060
15,997
Arizona
#13
Unalienable Rights are presumed to have been given by your Creator (whomever or whatever you believe that to be.) There is NOTHING in the Declaration of Independence that insinuates those Rights only belong to any given set of people. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, not the people AND the rulings of the United States Supreme Court acknowledge that unalienable Rights existed before the government did and unalienable Rights are above the law.

The left, seizing on semantics were instrumental in inserting the word term "inalienable rights" in an effort to confuse the people into buying that living Constitution B.S. The reality is, government gives / grants you "inalienable rights; " you are born with unalienable Rights. Radicals hoping to control the discussion aren't stupid. They know the distinction and con the right wing into adopting their argument - which is why the right cannot win this as a debate. In everyday language the two terms sound like synonyms; in law, they have been interpreted in a very different way.
You didn't answer the question. There are people--lots of people--who believe there is NO GOD or gods. They believe there is no creator--of any kind. How can someone have unalienable rights given by a Creator that doesn't exist--in their minds.
AND please stop repeating the same ol' same ol'. Either answer the question or let someone else answer--if they can.
 
Mar 2018
1,071
189
Grayson
#15
You didn't answer the question. There are people--lots of people--who believe there is NO GOD or gods. They believe there is no creator--of any kind. How can someone have unalienable rights given by a Creator that doesn't exist--in their minds.
AND please stop repeating the same ol' same ol'. Either answer the question or let someone else answer--if they can.
I DID answer your question. Unalienable Rights.. that term means something in law. I'm going to quote the law for you once more and answer your question.

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Can you read the first three words in both of those court rulings? The absolute Rights of INDIVIDUALS...
Is an atheist an individual? Is a Muslim an individual? Are YOU an individual?

The presupposition is not about whether someone believes in a Creator. The first court ruling I cited explains the reasoning:

"The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized."

For that reason the Bill of Rights guarantees a limitation on government. Now, what do you need to be spelled out for you?
 
Likes: webguy4
Mar 2018
1,071
189
Grayson
#16
And juries of your peers are often the ones who determine your rights...
If ONE member of that jury feels that the law is unconstitutional and stands by that, the accused will NOT be convicted regardless of the will of the majority. America is a Republic.
 
Likes: webguy4
Dec 2018
3,257
963
New England
#19
AND if a person doesn't believe in God, can they still have unalienable rights? If a person doesn't believe in God then obviously they don't have a Creator?
See how much I love discussing "stuff" with you, Nat.
What if they do believe in God?
 
Dec 2018
3,257
963
New England
#20
Repealing the bill of rights does not repeal any rights. Enacting the bill of rights did not create any rights. Passing the bill of rights commits the government to protecting the rights due us.
If a right is violated in the forrest, and there's no constitution around to protect it, did the right exist at all?
 

Similar Discussions