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

Jul 2014
14,925
9,153
massachusetts
#32
And who enacted Article One, God of the citizens of Massachusetts?
Actually, no mention of mythical beings, it's just article one, which the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found to mean that slavery could not exist in Massachusetts. So all the slaves in Massachusetts were free and had never been slaves in Massachusetts, so the state did not have to compensate the former slave owners.
 
Dec 2018
3,343
980
New England
#33
Actually, no mention of mythical beings, it's just article one, which the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found to mean that slavery could not exist in Massachusetts. So all the slaves in Massachusetts were free and had never been slaves in Massachusetts, so the state did not have to compensate the former slave owners.
The MA Supreme Court is not the entity that pens the MA state constitution's Articles. Come on goober, who's responsible for that Article? Say it ...
 
Sep 2014
1,317
157
On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
#36
What rights do you have that are not similarly granted?
When Sheep Become Rams

The rights I don't grant to the ruling class: inheritance, legislating on important issues instead of our right to national referendums, making college work-without-pay, self-serving rules for military service, determining wages, etc.
 
Mar 2018
1,216
212
Grayson
#38
Too late. You're already participating. I win! I win! Bwaaa haaa haaa!!

Back to the point, you're going to have to help me here. In this context, I see no difference between the terms "inalienable" and "unalienable." When I Google it I keep coming across references like this one: The Declaration of Independence: Unalienable / Inalinable What do you think the difference is?

I know what the difference is and so do you. Quit playing coy. We discussed this in another thread in the last 72 hours. Is your memory that short? I'll repeat it:

To simplify the difference:

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the Creator to the individual and cannot, under any circumstances, be surrendered or taken. All persons have unalienable rights.

"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.

The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

On the surface it appears the words are synonyms; in case law, there is a subtle difference. You cannot consent to giving up an unalienable Right. Its origin is that unalienable Rights are above the reach of government. OTOH, inalienable rights can be aliened if you consent to it. That simply is a way of telling you that inalienable rights have their origination in government granted rights.

Those who want to sell the living document cow dung know the difference, but continue to rely on grammar experts who have never spent a day of their lives in law school. Inalienable rights ARE subject to restriction; unalienable Rights are not
 

Similar Discussions