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

[NatMorton]

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

If you look around you will also see that many references consider the words equivalent. I think most laypeople use the terms as such, so your obsession with the subtle difference between the two is largely wasted. Using one in place of the other is not the conspiracy you make it out to be.

 

[NatMorton]

Not exactly true in a Republic.

True enough.

 

[LTP]

If you look around you will also see that many references consider the words equivalent. I think most laypeople use the terms as such, so your obsession with the subtle difference between the two is largely wasted. Using one in place of the other is not the conspiracy you make it out to be.

Your references are not legal precedents.

 

[goober]

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 ...

John Adams

 

[BubbaJones]

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.

If you don't believe in God, then aren't your parents your "creator" ?? If you believe in fundamental human rights, then you were endowed with those rights the instant you were born.

We don't need God or any religion to tell us we have these fundamental rights. Not all, but almost every society that has existed or currently exists had or has some version of the Golden Rule. Treat others as you want to be treated. In truth, THIS is the ONLY rule we need to live by.

 

[Clara007]

If you don't believe in God, then aren't your parents your "creator" ?? If you believe in fundamental human rights, then you were endowed with those rights the instant you were born.

We don't need God or any religion to tell us we have these fundamental rights. Not all, but almost every society that has existed or currently exists had or has some version of the Golden Rule. Treat others as you want to be treated. In truth, THIS is the ONLY rule we need to live by.

LOL--I never thought about my parents being my "Creator" (capital C)---AND dang me....they never told me about my inalienable rights when I was growing up--especially during my teen years. Hmmm....I wonder why?
But now that I think about it, there were times when my mother WANTED to be worshipped like a Goddess!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

When Rams lose to Patriots.

Washington Yellowskins

Patriots who don't stand for the national anthem debase the name of their team. But jock-sissyboy treason has been going on for a long time; not one NFL player went to Vietnam or even on active duty.

 

[saltydancindave]

LOL--I never thought about my parents being my "Creator" (capital C)---AND dang me....they never told me about my inalienable rights when I was growing up--especially during my teen years. Hmmm....I wonder why?
But now that I think about it, there were times when my mother WANTED to be worshipped like a Goddess!

Sounds like that inalienable right of Goddess in pedophile Rehnquist's "serve the Pope or die" Islam "death to the infidels" Bicentennial super ego, which never wavered for that second coming 9/11 not Arab, but Al Qaeda health care plan mothering of the USA with Mengele medical .

 

[NatMorton]

Your references are not legal precedents.

They references don't need to be. Your point is that somehow people are being manipulated to use one term over the other. My point is it doesn't matter since most folks believe the terms mean the same thing. It's like claiming there is'a conspiracy to use the term "pail" over "bucket," to what end?

 

[NatMorton]

Washington Yellowskins

Patriots who don't stand for the national anthem debase the name of their team. But jock-sissyboy treason has been going on for a long time; not one NFL player went to Vietnam or even on active duty.

Go tell it to Pat Tillman's family and former teammates.