An UNALIENABLE Right

my first girlfriend was a ballerina and even she doesn't know what those are. But you can lose some inalienable rights through due process. the government does not have any legitimate grounds to infringe on inalienable rights en masse

 

You are absolutely right about inalienable rights. That is why I have repeated the original terminology unalienable Rights throughout this entire thread, even making mention that, in law, the two words are different.

You should read the thread before declaring that someone is confused. Either you are confused OR you are knowingly LYING. Do yourself a favor and read the thread before digging an even deeper hole for yourself.

 

There is NO way to lose unalienable Rights. I have alluded to the fact that unalienable Rights and inalienable rights are two different concepts and are treated differently in law.

Don't play the left's game. There is a reason they rely on wordsmiths and not the law to state their case and then keep repeating the "inalienable" mantra.

 

Can you lose enumerated tights, though? Or do you just toss them when they get a hole in them?

 

If you have a Right to Life and someone places you in imminent danger tries to kill you, do you take away their Right to Life by killing them first? This isn't a trick question like which came first chicken or the egg.

If someone tries to violate your unalienable Rights, it is the only time they have forfeited theirs. John Locke is the man whose work the founding fathers relied on more than any other person in establishing our founding principles. Locke asserts that men in the state of nature are free and equal, and at liberty to do as they wish—but only “within the bounds of the law of nature.”

Obviously by guaranteeing the citizenry the Right to keep and Bear Arms, the mystery is clear. Take that and our earliest court decisions for what they are worth. The first time a U.S. court ruled on the Second Amendment, the court was quite clear and unequivocal:

"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, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."

We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


This isn't rocket science. If one person jeopardizes the unalienable Rights of another, the victim has a natural (unalienable) Right to self defense. Anyone that questions this line of logic ought to be honest with themselves. If they - or a loved (especially a child or a spouse) were being attacked and you knew it would end in your loved's ones life, you would kill the aggressor if you had the means.

 

I'd get rid of my tights if they got a hole in them. Holes usually appear at the very spot you were trying to cover up.

Girl walks into a bar. The bartender puts his hand on the tap and looks at her, saying "Anheuser Busch?" To which the girl replies, "it's quite well - and how's your d!ck?"

 

Its all a bunch of semantics that have NO FORCE OF LAW attached to any of it,.

 

I think you are stretching this a bit too far

 

Thank you for having considered what I had to say and contributing to the thread, even putting trolls in their places. I guess the thread is dead, but maybe you can rethink old presuppositions now.

 

Unalienable Tights ???

Remarkable.......

 

There's no difference in ordinary language or in law

If anything, "unalienable" would be more indicative that it could be defeated.

What is INALIENABLE?
Not subject to alienation ; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e. g., liberty.
http://thelawdictionary.org/inalienable/
What is UNALIENABLE?
Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.
http://thelawdictionary.org/unalienable/​

You will note that neither definition prevents the right from being defeated, superceded or removed.

And since you have said I am "absolutely right" about inalienable rights, and they are no different in law, then I must be "absolutely right" about unalienable rights.

And in any event, how did you reach the conclusion that the right to bear arms was "unalienable"?

 

Of course they can. Japanese WWII internment anyone (Korematsu v. United States)?

The purpose of the 2A was to prevent this in relation to the right to bear arms. The fact the 2A was required at all foresees such an otherwise valid law.

 

Now you are 100 percent wrong. Grammarists and linguists do not define legal terminology. Courts do. Since you're too lazy to do your own research, allow me to prove you wrong (I wanted YOU to do it so we didn't have to make an a** of you.) Here is some of an article by a layman, like yourself:

"It’s not an accident that I pronounce “unalienable” the way I do. I understand that most people pronounce it as you described and I understand that my “mis-pronouncing” the word will probably “jar” their “ear”. While most of the world seems to pronounce “unalienable” as “un-A-lee-un-a-ble,” I intentionally pronounce the word “un-a-LEEN-a-ble”.

Why? Because the meanings of the words “inalienable” and “unalienable” are vastly different and I wish to make absolutely clear whenever I use the latter instead of the former.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition; A.D. 2004), the definition of “inalienable” is:

“Not transferable or assignable. . . . Also termed unalienable”.

Black‘s 8th does not even define “unalienable” and would thus have us believe that the words “inalienable” and “unalienable” are synonymous.


But if we go back to Black‘s 2nd (A.D. 1910) we’ll see that “inalienable” was defined as:

“Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty.”

Black’s 2nd defines “unalienable” as:

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

At first glance the two terms seem pretty much synonymous. However, while the word “inalienable” is “not subject to alienation,” the word “unalienable” is “incapable of being aliened”. I believe the distinction between these two terms is this:

“Unalienable” is “incapable” of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something “unalienable”. Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an “unalienable Right”. it is impossible for you to take one of my “unalienable Rights”. It is likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my “unalienable Rights”. Once I have something “unalienable,” it’s impossible for me to get rid of it. It would be easier to give up the color of my eyes or my heart than to give up that which is “unalienable”.

That which is “inalienable,” on the other hand, is merely “not subject to alienation”. Black’s 2nd does not declare that it’s absolutely impossible for that which is “inalienable” to be sold, transferred or assigned. Instead, I believe that “inalienable” merely means that “inalienable rights” are not subject to “alienation” by others. That is, no one can compel me to sell, abandon or transfer any of my “inalienable” rights. I am not “subject” to compelled “alienation” by others.

But that leaves open the question of whether I may am entitled to voluntarily and unilaterally sell, transfer, abandon or otherwise surrender that which is “inalienable”. Thus, while it is impossible for me to abandon, or for government to take, my “unalienable rights,” it is possible for me to voluntarily waive my “inalienable” rights. I strongly suspect that our gov-co presumes that our rights are at best “inalienable,” and that since we have not expressly claimed them, we could have and therefore must have waived them.

if we look at Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (A.D. 1856) we’ll see:

“INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are inalienable. There are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty or of speech.”

“UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”

Clearly, the words are not synonymous. While “inalienable” rights can’t be “lawfully” transferred “to another,” they might nevertheless be waived by the holder or perhaps “unlawfully” (privately??) “transferred” to someone else. However, those rights which are “unalienable” are absolutely incapable of being transferred lawfully, unlawfully, administratively, privately or by implication or operation of law. that which you have, which is “unalienable,” is your wrists in an absolute sense that cannot possibly be discarded, transferred, sold, or otherwise abandoned.

Also, note that the word “unalienable” describes things which are “not in commerce”. However, it appears that those things which are “inalienable” could be “in commerce”. as you know, much of the trouble we have with the modern government is based on government’s claim of power to regulate all that is involved in interstate commerce. In so far as you may be able to prove
that any item or right you seek to use or exercise is “unalienable,” that item or write would be beyond the power of our government to regulate under interstate commerce. You can see the power potential in “unalienable”.

Most importantly, as declared in the “Declaration of Independence,” all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Our unalienable Rights flow from God and are not subject to man’s meddling. Bouvier’s agrees by defining “unalienable” as including our “natural” rights (which flow from “nature’s God”).

Admittedly, both “inalienable” and “unalienable” are defined to include the concept of “liberty”. Thus, there is some confusion, some overlap, in the two definitions. Some things may be both “inalienable and also “unalienable”. Therefore, my argument about the distinctions between the two terms is not necessarily as pristine as I would like.

Nevertheless, the two terms are significantly different and virtually all of the real power will be found in the word “unalienable” rather than in the word “inalienable”. Those things which are “unalienable” are from God, outside of commerce, and impossible to “alienate” by external force or by personal consent. “Inalienable” offers no advantages that I’m able to see as compared to “unalienable”. “Inalienable” offers some possible disadvantages such as the possibility that you might be allowed to voluntarily waive whatever “inalienable” rights you possess.

I conclude that while there may be some confusion between the two terms, “unalienable” offers great and absolute power while “inalienable” is far weaker, more conditional, and probably subject to at least some “alienation”.

https://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/unalienable-vs-inalienable/

Also see this:

http://nationalmyth.org/how-the-declaration-of-independence-was-hijacked/

Now, let us talk turkey from a legal perspective:

"Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

"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 can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individuals 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. {my own note - you cannot consent to give up an unalienable Right}

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

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)

Read the entire article at:

http://www.gemworld.com/usa-unalienable.htm

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
- George Mason Virginia Declaration of Rights (June 12, 1776)

Check out this link:

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/09/08/unalienable-vs-inalienable/

It appears that those who insist in "inalienable rights" are in the same camp with Hobbesian Barack Obama.

BTW, even the wordmiths admit to Adask's (cited earlier) explanations:

http://wikidiff.com/unalienable/inalienable

Bottom line - You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent... (inalienable right)

The Right to the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed (unalienable Right)

They are different concepts that the left would like to claim don't exist, but they do - at least in law, and it will be a cold day in Hell before I ever compromise on unalienable Rights.

Albert Gallatin Date: October 7, 1789:

"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals . . . . t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

That was published two years before the official ratification of the Bill of Rights. Gallatin was a former U.S. Congressman and U.S. Senator and ally of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison having served under both as Secretary of the Treasury.

The enumerated Rights, according to those who worked on the Bill of Rights, are unalienable.

 

Just some food for thought….on some cases mentioning the nature of “inalienable” rights….

“The most natural privilege of man, next to the right of acting for himself, is that of combining his exertions with those of his fellow creatures and of acting in common with them. The right of association therefore appears to me almost as inalienable in its nature as the right of personal liberty. No legislator can attack it without impairing the foundations of society.” 1 A. de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 203 (P. Bradley ed. 1954)." NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 940 (1982)

“The First Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows not from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable rights of the person.” United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 728 (2012)

And one of the best explanations of the issue I have seen is here—offered in a footnote to an opinion by Justice Brennan in a case of a serviceman who was suing the government after he discovered the government had secretly experimented on him while a service member:

“(Human experimentation authorized by the state) dramatizes the notion that the state is free to treat its nationals in the manner it chooses because it perceives itself as the source of all rights, and therefore as beyond the reach of law, rather than regarding rights as inalienable, that is, not subject to arbitrary cancellation by the State.” United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, 708 (1987) (Brennan, concurring in part and dissenting in part)

My opinion is this....

The concept of rights flowing from the nature of man and not from the largess of the state is not a novel concept. I use the word “inalienable” because that is the word our courts typically use. But whatever word you use to describe liberty this topic you guys are on is really about the proper definition of government itself. As others have already correctly cited, that definition is found in the foundation of our nation:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

In my opinion, this simple statement of liberty has not lost its truth with the passage of time.

Our government was born from its citizens. Its only legitimate right to exist lies in maintaining its proper relationship with its citizens. That relationship involves the government’s required acceptance that certain rights are fundamental, and flow from the nature of man himself and the freedoms he has because of who he is rather than who it is that holds the reigns of government.

Our government cannot be allowed to sever this relationship which gives rise to its very existence. In fact, no government created by the people has the legitimacy to then claim it has the power to deny the people the very rights it was created to protect.

Now has this happened, even in America? Yes. We have seen it with slavery, with the treatment of Native Americans, and with the treatment of Americans of Japanese ancestry during WWII (all of which, by the way, involved the denial of the RKBA as a precondition to racial oppression).

But if mankind has fallen short of the principles that were adopted as the foundation of my nation (yes, even by the men who espoused them at the birth of my nation while also trying to justify keeping their fellow man in bondage), then it is not the fault of these principles. All this proves is the principles still set the proper ideals, and mankind still needs to respect them if we are to ever deem to call ourselves free men and women.

The concept that the citizen is supreme, that he rules his government rather that his government rules him, that he has inalienable rights which are not granted by the government but are secured by it, is the foundation of any free society.

No one in their right mind, beyond petty dictators and despots, disputes this. The real question here is does the RKBA fall among one of those fundamental rights of man. I say it does.

That, at least, is my opinion. Agree or disagree as you will.

 

You should read the thread. You would find there is a legal difference between an inalienable right and an unalienable Right. Are you going to read the thread OR do we have to repeat the differences between unalienable and inalienable?

Inalienable - rights you can forfeit and are not inherent

Unalienable - Rights you cannot forfeit, sell, buy, trade away, etc. as they are above the law.

Read the thread.

 

so lets quit the shadow dancing. I like people who say what they think straight up. I have always done that-I don't believe any federal gun control involving privately owned individual arms is constitutional. Your turn

 

Can you decipher what that guy just said for me? I'm missing something. Latherty doesn't always make a good, understandable point.

 

Just when I thought this thread was dead, yet another person does not understand that it matters whether your Rights are unalienable or inalienable.

Repeated attempts have been made to educate the trolls and misguided gun owners; they refuse to read the thread, but it really matters. The courts are made up of lawyers. Virtually all lawyers are members of the American Bar Association (ABA.) That organization is the most liberal organization in the United States.

Judges often play literary prestidigitation with words. They tell us that inalienable and unalienable are the same thing, while applying different standards to the words. The word in the Declaration of Independence; the idea that some Rights are above the reach of the law is unalienable. If you insist on using a word that was not intended to mean a Right above the reach of the law, then the government will continue to take your Rights.

There is no reason to use the word inalienable when referring to inherent, natural rights. The words have been interpreted differently by the courts and they will oblige all those who sell out their heritage based upon layman definitions of the word.

 

actually lots of us are not. I resigned from the ABA when I left private practice and because one of its presidents-a William IDES was a hard core bannerrhoid spokesman. I instead joined the Federal Bar Association and made contributions to the FEDERALIST SOCIETY-which had been founded (four of the five) by good friends in College. Biggest regret, they asked me to be a co-founder and I was too busy coaching a varsity team and going to law school

 

Let's start with a glaringly false statement attributed to Patrick Henry that says, ""The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people." In fact according to the Declaration itself the very purpose of government is to restrain the people to protect the unalienable rights that people will violate in the absence of government. The Articles of the Constitution provide the structure and authority of government to do exactly that, restrain the people. If the purpose of government was to restrain the government then the solution is to have no government at all.

The Bill of Rights doesn't list unalienable rights. The example of the "right to bear arms" is not an unalienable (natural) right of the person. The unalienable (natural) right is the "right of self defense against acts of aggression" and in exercising that right the person cannot violate the rights of the aggressor. We allow the use of arms such as firearms only out of pragmatic necessity because we don't have a means of stopping a determined act of aggression without violating the aggressor's rights. That could change someday with the invention of a non-lethal weapon that instantly immobilizes the aggressor without causing them harm.

We can also note that the First Amendment refers to "Freedoms" such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press but these are not "rights" and instead protect the "liberty" of the person to exercise their unalienable rights. For example the actual unalienable right related to freedom of speech and expression is the "Right of Thought." Freedom of the press protects the "Liberty" of the people to express "political" thoughts.

When it comes to "Liberty" many mistakenly believe that it allows a person to do what they please but, in fact, Liberty is not License and the Liberty of the Person is limited to exercising their unalienable (natural) rights. Republicans and many libertarians get this wrong believing that Liberty is about doing whatever you please so long as it doesn't directly harm another person but that's "license" and not "liberty" of the person.

If we look at some of the other Amendments such as the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments they're about civil rights and not unalienable rights.

If we look at the Eighth Amendment it doesn't address any rights or freedoms of the people at all but instead is a blanket prohibition against the actions of government.

The Ninth Amendment is vague because it refers to unenumerated rights but doesn't expressly protect them.

The Tenth Amendment only refers to the "powers" of the states and the people but then it also includes the caveats that these powers cannot violate the Constitution nor can they supersede powers granted to the federal government.

If the Bill of Rights was about protecting our unalienable (natural) rights then it did a piss poor job of it.

 

Funny how in Anti Gun NYC, if they grant you a scarce Handgun carry permit, you can legally defend yourself from attack, and as long as you follow the established guidelines, and those are pretty liberal...... You are good to go.
As long as your license is current and valid, and your handgun is registered and legal.
Personal Defense is no big woof...

 

I think that the Constitution doesn't grant the Fed any direct power in this area. The Fed can only infringe upon persons owning or using a firearm in the application of its other powers. So I agree with you that any Fed law that directly controls firearms is prima facie unconstitutional, but laws that indirectly control firearms may be constitutional.

The 14th amendment muddied the waters a bit, as it directed the 2A to the state level, which definitely was not intended when the 2A was drafted. The effect, if read plainly without reference to the first phrase of the 2A, is that neither state nor fed has any right to infringe upon anyone's, right to bear arms, anyone including criminals and known terrorists and any arms including a back-pack nuclear bomb or sarin gas cannisters, which is flagrantly problematic and poses a genuine risk to the peace and well-being of the citizenry.

So somewhere, there is an exception. The only place where anything akin to an exception exists is in the first phrase of the 2A, which only looks to purpose. There is no mention there of any self defense purpose.

 

That clearly is your erroneous opinion. I would admonish all readers to rely on the same people the founding fathers relied on. The most quoted man the founding fathers cited was John Locke. According to Locke:

"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."

http://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/497

And you seem to want to build your case on challenging one quote. Let us keep reminding of how wrong you are.

Albert Gallatin Date: October 7, 1789:

"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals . . . . t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

What weight should we give those statements (and hundreds more like it?) Ask another founding father:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322) { that is exactly what I just did }

It's kind of hard for you to sustain such a disingenuous argument when the founding fathers are rather explicit as to the meaning of the founding documents and their application, but feel free to throw up walls of irrelevant text with no supporting documentation.

 

One only need to look at the Supreme Court's Cruikshank decision:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The Right exists. It wasn't granted by the Constitution. It's not dependent upon that instrument for its existence. You know why. Yet you continue to try and use that dishonest argument in every gun thread.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Right to Life. The Second Amendment does not grant you that so you did not need it. The State's interest in the Second Amendment is so that we can also insure the security of a free State.

 

that ignores the tenth and the first talks about a right of assembly, which clearly is forfeited if you are convicted and jailed. In reality the states were supposed to regulate USE of firearms