That’s not lip service. Lip service rationalizes doing wrong as a right.
When Truman dropped two nukes on Japan he didn’t argue he was doing good. He argued it was the lesser of two evils but evil nonetheless.
Excuse me- how far back do you want to go? How about Lincoln? Washington? The only politician I have respect for besides Jefferson in Davy Crockett- politicians ALL pay lip service- maybe you're to blinded to notice- the constitution has gained nothing but lip service since before the ink was dry- Liberty and Justice for all- shall not be infringed- want more evidence?
We have over 200 years worth- simple because, IMO, a lack of respect for the Individual-
Here- read this essay for starters- then tell me about lip service.
CDZ - Confusion
“
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.
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 l
aw 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.
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?
