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

Jul 2018
2,320
570
Earth
#51
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.
Why should someone go to war and get wounded or killed for nothing that involves him unless he is forced to do so? What did those troops die in Vietnam for? They got zero benefit from it. Marriott did get a hotel.
 
Jul 2018
2,320
570
Earth
#52
Am picking up this thought from another thread. Is there such a thing as an "inalienable right?" There is no shortage of legal prose dedicated to the subject, and from it most of us probably believe such rights exist. But what right cannot be taken away with a fully ratified amendment to the Constitution? Put aside the infinitesimal likelihood of the following happening, but why couldn't the entire Bill of Rights be repealed by a single amendment declaring it null and void?

One can thump their chest and say "they can take away the First Amendment, but that won't stop me saying what I want!" but I can't imagine that hubris will do much good while sitting in a jail cell awaiting a show trial on a charge of sedition.

No, there are no political rights that cannot be removed. We enjoy the rights that two-thirds of Congress and three fourths of the state legislatures give us.
Article II, Section 3, of the Colorado State Constitution addresses inalienable rights =

Text of Section 3:
Inalienable Rights

All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.[1]
Article II, Colorado Constitution - Ballotpedia

So does Article I, Section 1, of the Kansas Constitution =
Text of Section 1:
Equal Rights

All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.[1]
Bill of Rights, Kansas Constitution - Ballotpedia
 
Dec 2012
20,148
8,437
California
#53
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.
The word refers to a "natural-right".
 
Mar 2018
1,259
228
Grayson
#54
The word refers to a "natural-right".
I explained this to clara007 in post #11.

An unalienable Right is what you are presupposed to be born with. NO government has jurisdiction over an unalienable Right. It cannot be bought, sold, traded, forfeited, or with-held (except temporarily if you are paying for a crime.) Synonyms include, but are not limited to natural, inherent, God given, absolute, irrevocable, etc. Courts have ruled like this:

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)

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. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

On the issue of Inalienable rights" the courts have ruled differently.

Grammarists and some historians will tell you that unalienable and inalienable are the same thing. In law, this is not true. I suspect that the confusion is what has led the United States Supreme Court to usurp the authority given to the other two branches of government and wage a war against the de jure (that is lawful) Constitution. Let’s define an inalienable right. A court ruling makes an important distinction:

Inalienable 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 (1952)

You cannot consent to forfeiting an unalienable Right. That is the essence of the word. Let's speak the words of the founders:

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

Unalienable, according to Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edition) is:

Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.

The word unalienable disappeared from Black's Law Dictionary in the 8th Edition. Ah yes, the American Bar Association, the most liberal body in the United States of America, along with their lap dogs (judges and Justices in the United States Supreme Court) are hoping you forget WHERE unalienable Rights originated from. THAT is why the United States Supreme Court was very subtle in erasing the meaning of unalienable Rights and judiciously claiming that the government grants you your Rights. May I quote the HOLDING in the Heller decision?

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Wait. WTH??? You mean some rights ARE unlimited, but not the Second Amendment? Who grants these "rights" anyway? An 1846 decision in the Georgia Supreme Court (later upheld in the United States Supreme Court) made plain what is meant by an unalienable Right:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia..." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Texas made the point a bit more unequivocal:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government...
...and "it is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power
." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Because we are sitting this one out, unalienable Rights are being replaced by government granted privileges. They are known an inalienable rights and they protect you from NOTHING since they are government granted.
 
Dec 2012
20,148
8,437
California
#55
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.
An inalienable right is not subject to forfeiture, whether you believe in God or not.
 

Similar Discussions