- Dec 2018
- New England
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.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