CDZ Confusion

[sparky]

Red S's eloquence is rather moving Porter.....~S~

 

[Gdjjr]

America was once the greatest nation on earth.

I think it had the potential to be really great- but somewhere near Salinas Lord, we let it slip away looking for that home we hoped to find- freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose, nothing ain't worth nothing but it's free-
Land of the free- free is encumbered. Liberty and Justice for All- there are no caveats in "all". Rules and regulations encumber, on purpose- someone said in a different post if you don't something (whatever word was used)with the constitution you're a traitor- currently, then, there are 537 elected traitors in the District of Criminals, if the constitution is the bench mark- apparently that happens only when the opposition is in power.

Post your inalienable vs unalienable essay- let's see how confused the readers get.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

America was once the greatest nation on earth.

I think it had the potential to be really great- but somewhere near Salinas Lord, we let it slip away looking for that home we hoped to find- freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose, nothing ain't worth nothing but it's free-
Land of the free- free is encumbered. Liberty and Justice for All- there are no caveats in "all". Rules and regulations encumber, on purpose- someone said in a different post if you don't something (whatever word was used)with the constitution you're a traitor- currently, then, there are 537 elected traitors in the District of Criminals, if the constitution is the bench mark- apparently that happens only when the opposition is in power.

Post your inalienable vs unalienable essay- let's see how confused the readers get.

There are three primary kinds of "rights." Each has unique characteristics Let's start at the top:

"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."

Unalienable Rights are presumed to have come from a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The word unalienable means that the Right cannot be taken away. The EARLIEST court rulings held that these unalienable Rights are inherent, natural, irrevocable, absolute, and above the law.

The next type of "rights" are inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are a by-product of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment. In order to understand these "rights" you have to read the 14th Amendment (and I'll bold the relevant parts so you can see it for yourself):

" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice that I told you unalienable Rights are absolute. Those Rights were bestowed upon you by a Creator and are natural, inherent, absolute, irrevocable, and above the law. The 14th Amendment nullifies that and now, via a constitutional amendment, say that the "privileges and immunities" of citizenship cannot be denied without "due process of law." Life, Liberty and Property now become "privileges." Nowhere in the 14th Amendment do you see the word unalienable or even Rights for that matter. Adding insult to injury, the courts, in their reinterpretation of "rights" ruled that you can consent to forfeiting your "rights." That concept is the antithesis of the the word unalienable.

In order to circumvent this outrage, the courts began developing case law revolving around a synonym for unalienable. That word is "inalienable." Essentially, the courts have ruled now that inalienable rights can be aliened by your consent; that government can limit these rights; that your rights are NOT absolute. The net effect is that the courts and the legal community repealed unalienable Rights, replaced them with inalienable rights and had the word unalienable removed from Blacks Law Dictionary - though unalienable is the official word in the Declaration of Independence.

Other "rights" are actually privileges doled out by the government at their discretion... i.e. the "right" to vote. If you'd like me to post the actual court rulings in chronological order to prove what I just said, I can do that too.

 

[sparky]

the District of Criminals

oh, i'm so going to steal that one Gdjjr

Notice that I told you unalienable Rights are absolute.

Yes but, after i started reading the PA it dawned on me that the 'absolute' part wasn't all that absolute anymore Porter

~S~

 

[Porter Rockwell]

the District of Criminals

oh, i'm so going to steal that one Gdjjr

Notice that I told you unalienable Rights are absolute.

Yes but, after i started reading the PA it dawned on me that the 'absolute' part wasn't all that absolute anymore Porter

~S~

The PA part??? Unalienable Rights are absolute, which is why it is the function of government to insure that those Rights are protected.

 

[sparky]

the District of Criminals

oh, i'm so going to steal that one Gdjjr

Notice that I told you unalienable Rights are absolute.

Yes but, after i started reading the PA it dawned on me that the 'absolute' part wasn't all that absolute anymore Porter

~S~

The PA part??? Unalienable Rights are absolute, which is why it is the function of government to insure that those Rights are protected.

mea cuppa Porter

abbreviated for 'Patriot act'
EPIC - USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)

essentially where our Congress turned America's 'Unalienable rights' into whatever they decided was 'alienable'

Point?

Inalienable , in your pristine use of the term (i've no argument w/it) does not exist 'warts and all'

I hope you don't find my take offensive....

~S~

 

[Syriusly]

A back and forth in a different thread prompted this. There are several things that confuse me. I'm looking for clarity. The following is just the beginning.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of The United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

We're expected, as sponges for brains, to recite that in school, with our little hands over our little hearts, I suppose to add gravity to the words, yet, as adults we stray from it in many ways. Why?

I never liked the pledge of allegiance- even as a kid- it always seemed to phony and Fascist like to demand that we kids repeat that we are good little citizens over and over.

I never needed any pledge of allegiance to be a patriotic American, and I never saw any purpose behind it other than brain washing. Teach kids why the ideals of America are important- don't just make them all repeat something that made old men feel like they were doing something patriotic.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

the District of Criminals

oh, i'm so going to steal that one Gdjjr

Notice that I told you unalienable Rights are absolute.

Yes but, after i started reading the PA it dawned on me that the 'absolute' part wasn't all that absolute anymore Porter

~S~

The PA part??? Unalienable Rights are absolute, which is why it is the function of government to insure that those Rights are protected.

mea cuppa Porter

abbreviated for 'Patriot act'
EPIC - USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)

essentially where our Congress turned America's 'Unalienable rights' into whatever they decided was 'alienable'

Point?

Inalienable , in your pristine use of the term (i've no argument w/it) does not exist 'warts and all'

I hope you don't find my take offensive....

~S~

I don't find it offensive, just inaccurate.

Years ago I was put into a position of having to defend my life against LEOs over the so - called "Patriot Act." It took three years out of my life and I defended myself. I won the case, BTW. So, you might say I have the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree on that one law.

I did that while working in immigration law. I don't take offense; I simply keep plugging along. I offered to post the relevant parts of rulings and their legal citations to show how our Rights were stolen out from under us.

Back in the 1970s through the mid / late 1990s the patriot community made tremendous inroads fighting the 14th and 16th Amendments (both being illegal) before the left successfully flipped the right. Had the patriot community prevailed and repealed the 14th Amendment, your God given, unalienable Rights would have been held inviolable.

By the liberal Court rulings, the only "rights" you have are government granted. Calling them inalienable was just a joke. I did not forfeit my Rights.

 

[Syriusly]

America was once the greatest nation on earth.

I think it had the potential to be really great- but somewhere near Salinas Lord, we let it slip away looking for that home we hoped to find- freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose, nothing ain't worth nothing but it's free-
Land of the free- free is encumbered. Liberty and Justice for All- there are no caveats in "all". Rules and regulations encumber, on purpose- someone said in a different post if you don't something (whatever word was used)with the constitution you're a traitor- currently, then, there are 537 elected traitors in the District of Criminals, if the constitution is the bench mark- apparently that happens only when the opposition is in power.

Post your inalienable vs unalienable essay- let's see how confused the readers get.

There are three primary kinds of "rights." Each has unique characteristics Let's start at the top:

"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."

Unalienable Rights are presumed to have come from a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The word unalienable means that the Right cannot be taken away. The EARLIEST court rulings held that these unalienable Rights are inherent, natural, irrevocable, absolute, and above the law.

The next type of "rights" are inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are a by-product of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment. In order to understand these "rights" you have to read the 14th Amendment (and I'll bold the relevant parts so you can see it for yourself):

" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice that I told you unalienable Rights are absolute. Those Rights were bestowed upon you by a Creator and are natural, inherent, absolute, irrevocable, and above the law. The 14th Amendment nullifies that and now, via a constitutional amendment, say that the "privileges and immunities" of citizenship cannot be denied without "due process of law." Life, Liberty and Property now become "privileges." Nowhere in the 14th Amendment do you see the word unalienable or even Rights for that matter. Adding insult to injury, the courts, in their reinterpretation of "rights" ruled that you can consent to forfeiting your "rights." That concept is the antithesis of the the word unalienable.

In order to circumvent this outrage, the courts began developing case law revolving around a synonym for unalienable. That word is "inalienable." Essentially, the courts have ruled now that inalienable rights can be aliened by your consent; that government can limit these rights; that your rights are NOT absolute. The net effect is that the courts and the legal community repealed unalienable Rights, replaced them with inalienable rights and had the word unalienable removed from Blacks Law Dictionary - though unalienable is the official word in the Declaration of Independence.

Other "rights" are actually privileges doled out by the government at their discretion... i.e. the "right" to vote. If you'd like me to post the actual court rulings in chronological order to prove what I just said, I can do that too.

Inalienable and unalienable are synonyms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...04/are-our-rights-inalienable-or-unalienable/

 

[Porter Rockwell]

A back and forth in a different thread prompted this. There are several things that confuse me. I'm looking for clarity. The following is just the beginning.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of The United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

We're expected, as sponges for brains, to recite that in school, with our little hands over our little hearts, I suppose to add gravity to the words, yet, as adults we stray from it in many ways. Why?

I never liked the pledge of allegiance- even as a kid- it always seemed to phony and Fascist like to demand that we kids repeat that we are good little citizens over and over.

I never needed any pledge of allegiance to be a patriotic American, and I never saw any purpose behind it other than brain washing. Teach kids why the ideals of America are important- don't just make them all repeat something that made old men feel like they were doing something patriotic.

You apparently skipped a post. Schools DID start teaching the importance of the Pledge. Maybe you missed that post.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

America was once the greatest nation on earth.

I think it had the potential to be really great- but somewhere near Salinas Lord, we let it slip away looking for that home we hoped to find- freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose, nothing ain't worth nothing but it's free-
Land of the free- free is encumbered. Liberty and Justice for All- there are no caveats in "all". Rules and regulations encumber, on purpose- someone said in a different post if you don't something (whatever word was used)with the constitution you're a traitor- currently, then, there are 537 elected traitors in the District of Criminals, if the constitution is the bench mark- apparently that happens only when the opposition is in power.

Post your inalienable vs unalienable essay- let's see how confused the readers get.

There are three primary kinds of "rights." Each has unique characteristics Let's start at the top:

"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."

Unalienable Rights are presumed to have come from a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The word unalienable means that the Right cannot be taken away. The EARLIEST court rulings held that these unalienable Rights are inherent, natural, irrevocable, absolute, and above the law.

The next type of "rights" are inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are a by-product of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment. In order to understand these "rights" you have to read the 14th Amendment (and I'll bold the relevant parts so you can see it for yourself):

" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice that I told you unalienable Rights are absolute. Those Rights were bestowed upon you by a Creator and are natural, inherent, absolute, irrevocable, and above the law. The 14th Amendment nullifies that and now, via a constitutional amendment, say that the "privileges and immunities" of citizenship cannot be denied without "due process of law." Life, Liberty and Property now become "privileges." Nowhere in the 14th Amendment do you see the word unalienable or even Rights for that matter. Adding insult to injury, the courts, in their reinterpretation of "rights" ruled that you can consent to forfeiting your "rights." That concept is the antithesis of the the word unalienable.

In order to circumvent this outrage, the courts began developing case law revolving around a synonym for unalienable. That word is "inalienable." Essentially, the courts have ruled now that inalienable rights can be aliened by your consent; that government can limit these rights; that your rights are NOT absolute. The net effect is that the courts and the legal community repealed unalienable Rights, replaced them with inalienable rights and had the word unalienable removed from Blacks Law Dictionary - though unalienable is the official word in the Declaration of Independence.

Other "rights" are actually privileges doled out by the government at their discretion... i.e. the "right" to vote. If you'd like me to post the actual court rulings in chronological order to prove what I just said, I can do that too.

Inalienable and unalienable are synonyms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...04/are-our-rights-inalienable-or-unalienable/

In law, they are NOT. It has been explained to you. At least have the common courtesy of reading the thread before posting inaccurate lies. We have a troll on board. Here comes the proof. I'll prove you wrong just for sport in my next posting.

 

[sparky]

Years ago I was put into a position of having to defend my life against LEOs over the so - called "Patriot Act." It took three years out of my life and I defended myself. I won the case, BTW. So, you might say I have the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree on that one law.

That makes you a rather interesting fellow Porter

And so, you are probably correct , in that i am misdirected, inaccurate....

so i have to ask, where does 'inalienable' hail from? Is it some constitutional fundamentalism? like manna from above? from 'we the people' ? or from whatever authority interprets it, or some individual narrative?

help me out here.....

~S~

 

[Porter Rockwell]

“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)

I may be repetitive a couple of times, but it is to put the rulings into their proper context.

Let us define this word unalienable a bit more closely and then talk about it:

Unalienable -Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. (Blacks Law Dictionary online)

So, let us recap:

You have Rights that preceded the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Those Rights are natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, and God given (regardless of whether you acknowledge a God or not)

Those unalienable Rights are not transferable

Now, let me give you another court ruling:

“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..."
BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

That last ruling is from the United States Supreme Court

So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“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, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and 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 lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..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 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

So, your basic unalienable Rights are the Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These are Rights you gained upon birth and do not owe anyone a duty in order to exercise them. We know, however, that the reality is a bit different, but this Manual will go in depth to explain WHY and WHAT you can do about it. For now, we will focus on these unalienable Rights.

MORE TO COME

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Unalienable Rights are rooted in our foundational principles and first talked about in the Declaration of Independence. Of this document (the Declaration) Thomas Jefferson stated:

“The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.”

Of course having said that, we must talk a bit about the authority of the Declaration of Independence. Some people will tell you that the Declaration of Independence is not law; they will say it is not binding; some will even tell you it is something other than what the author of the Declaration of Independence claimed it was. So, let’s dispel the myths so that you fully understand your Rights.

The Declaration of Independence is at the head of the United States Code, the official laws of the United States. Okay, so it is not the Constitution, a statute, or court ruling. But, it is part of the organic law of the United States by virtue of its place in the United States Code. It IS the declaratory charter of our Rights and the Rights of man; therefore it is a foundational principle upon which the Republic was founded.

The Declaration of Independence has been used as persuasive authority in court cases all the way up to the United States Supreme Court (in a later chapter, we will examine what persuasive authority means.) In one case the United States Supreme Court ruled:

“The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "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. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."

Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

The early courts (including the United States Supreme Court) clearly ruled that unalienable Rights predate the Constitution, and so they ruled accordingly.

So, back to the discussion of your Rights…

Having defined unalienable Rights, what happened to them between the ratification of the Declaration of Independence and today?

Patrick Henry refused to sign the Constitution. Since the proceedings were held in secret, Henry became famous for saying he “smelled a rat.” And, while the Constitution did not mention our Rights, the Constitution was opposed by Anti-Federalists until they included the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is the equivalent of a codification of our declaratory charter (Declaration of Independence) founding principles.

STILL MORE TO COME

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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)


Courts have the power to define terminology. If you look at the Declaration of Independence, it is specific. The word is unalienable. Today, most people (especially liberals) want to use the word inalienable… and they can point out the fact that the words were interchangeable in Jefferson’s time. They key controlling word there is were. The words were interchangeable, but whether by accident or design, the word inalienable is not used as a synonym for unalienable. Remember that an unalienable Right is absolute, inherent, natural, God given and cannot be aliened.


An inalienable right CAN be aliened. The court rules that you can consent to relinquishing the right. This very point may very well be the greatest takeaway you can get from this. So, if these inalienable rights can be aliened, they are NOT, repeat NOT unalienable Rights and lights, alarms, bells, and whistles ought to be going off every time you hear that word inalienable.


The source of your unalienable Rights, according to the Declaration of Independence, is your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) They are above the law, so we know today that is not what is practiced at the federal level. For example, in 2008 the famous Heller decision came down from the United States Supreme Court. The Court ruled:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008)

What??? Wait a minute. What did the founders say?

“Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature” Benjamin Franklin

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry

“...rightful Liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819)


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


What happened? After all we looked at relative to unalienable Rights… unchangeable, absolute, natural, inherent, God given Rights, the United States Supreme Court reverses all those precedents we discussed earlier. How? And did they have the authority?

If any of you want to know the answer to that, we can go on.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Years ago I was put into a position of having to defend my life against LEOs over the so - called "Patriot Act." It took three years out of my life and I defended myself. I won the case, BTW. So, you might say I have the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree on that one law.

That makes you a rather interesting fellow Porter

And so, you are probably correct , in that i am misdirected, inaccurate....

so i have to ask, where does 'inalienable' hail from? Is it some constitutional fundamentalism? like manna from above? from 'we the people' ? or from whatever authority interprets it, or some individual narrative?

help me out here.....

~S~

I answered you in those previous posts due to the troll that jumped into this conversation without reading it. I took some pages from a manual I'm writing and posted them. It will be worth the 10 or so minutes it takes to check it.

 

[Syriusly]

“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)

I may be repetitive a couple of times, but it is to put the rulings into their proper context.

Let us define this word unalienable a bit more closely and then talk about it:

Unalienable -Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. (Blacks Law Dictionary online)

So, let us recap:

You have Rights that preceded the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Those Rights are natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, and God given (regardless of whether you acknowledge a God or not)

Those unalienable Rights are not transferable

Now, let me give you another court ruling:

“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..."
BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

That last ruling is from the United States Supreme Court

So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“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, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and 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 lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..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 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

So, your basic unalienable Rights are the Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These are Rights you gained upon birth and do not owe anyone a duty in order to exercise them. We know, however, that the reality is a bit different, but this Manual will go in depth to explain WHY and WHAT you can do about it. For now, we will focus on these unalienable Rights.

MORE TO COME

Blacks Law Dictionary- not much help there.

What is INALIENABLE?

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

What is UNALIENABLE?
Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.

The writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution used the terms interchangeably.
The Declaration of Independence: Unalienable / Inalinable

Here is a listing of known versions of the Declaration, showing which word is used:

The Declaration on parchment, now in the Department of State unalienable
The Declaration as written out in the corrected Journal unalienable
The Declaration as printed by Dunlap under the order of Congress unalienable
The draft of the Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in The American Philosophical Society, in Philadelphia inalienable
The Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in the New York Public Library inalienable
The draft of the Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in the Massachusetts Historical Society, in Boston inalienable
The copy in the handwriting of John Adams of the "Rough draught" of the Declaration, now at the Massachusetts Historical Society. unalienable
In a footnote in "The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas" by Carl Lotus Becker, published 1922, we learn:

The Rough Draft reads "[inherent &] inalienable." There is no indication that Congress changed "inalienable" to "unalienable"; but the latter form appears in the text in the rough Journal, in the corrected Journal, and in the parchment copy. John Adams, in making his copy of the Rough Draft, wrote " unalienable." Adams was one of the committee which supervised the printing of the text adopted by Congress, and it may have been at his suggestion that the change was made in printing. "Unalienable" may have been the more customary form in the eighteenth century.


“Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man.”
-- Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence

With that- I will leave you to continue to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[sparky]

What happened? After all we looked at relative to unalienable Rights… unchangeable, absolute, natural, inherent, God given Rights, the United States Supreme Court reverses all those precedents we discussed earlier. How? And did they have the authority?

If any of you want to know the answer to that, we can go on.

I suppose because they felt they had the authority to do so

Know i'm not disagreeing with the context of your 'unalienable' posts Porter

it's simply i see each amendment ,and every constitutional 'right' you speak of run through the litigant meat grinder

thus the true art of subjugation

making those that are, believe they are not.....

~S~

 

[Gdjjr]

I want more! I will say, this is the absolute best I've ever read, outside of some really good fiction, which this ain't- we're getting schooled, for no cost other than a little time-
I sincerely appreciate and applaud you- of course it doesn't hurt that unalienable rights are at the center what with my passion being just that and preaching them every chance I get. Yes. Preach.

 

[Gdjjr]

oh, i'm so going to steal that one Gdjjr

I stole it from oddball- LOL