An UNALIENABLE Right

I'm still waiting for you to identify the rights that are unalienable rather than inalienable so that I can respond to your "test".

I cannot respond to your "test" until you have provided the parameters.

 

Read the thread and quit making excuses. We talked about it for over 150 posts. If you can't make that determination, then you are admitting that you never understood the topic from the outset, and consequently, don't have a clue as to what was proven. Unalienable Rights are listed many times.

You're making excuses for not reading the thread and then trolling me. Hell, most of what you are asking is in the post you just quoted.

 

Latherty keeps asking; guess we'll have to just keep on replying. No sense trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

If you could please reply with an answer then we can move on.
Thank you
Name the rights that are unalienable and not inalienable.

 

I already have. And I have moved on. You tapped out. Dude no matter what is said, you can't read and interpret it, so what's the point repeating it again and again? Okay, I'll repeat it yet again. Maybe you'll get someone to read it to you.

 

Reposted at Latherty's request.

 

Really simple: just name the rights that are unalienable but not inalienable.

You haven't done this yet.

Just a list.

Should take you 5 minutes since you think you've done all that research?

 

It's been done... over and over. No research is necessary. Get someone to explain this thread to you. You have failed. You tapped out son and asking for information already provided over and over and over again is idiotic. If you cannot read, you cannot read. Move on. That's my advice.

 

Reposted as per Latherty's request.

 

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -- Patrick Henry, speech of June 5 1788

The public liberty... something we must use force to protect and use force to preserve.

"The modern conception of liberty as implying certain fundamental or basic rights dates back to the writings of seventeenth- and eighteenth century theorists such as Francis Hutcheson and John Locke. Hutcheson believed that all people are equal and that they possess certain basic rights that are conferred by Natural Law.

Locke postulated that humans are born with an innate tendency to be reasonable and tolerant. He also believed that all individuals are entitled to liberty under the natural law that governed them before they formed societies. Locke's concept of natural law required that no one should interfere with another's life, health, liberty, or possessions. According toLocke, governments are necessary only to protect those who live within the laws of nature from those who do not. For this reason, he believed that the power of government and the rule of the majority must be kept in check, and that they are best controlled by protecting and preserving individual liberties."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Liberty

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." John Adams, founding father and second president of the United States

Bottom line: America was founded upon this principle that you have rights that predate the governing documents of ANY country. Those Rights are above the jurisdiction any mortal power on this earth. It is an idea that our founders believed in and what many of them died in order to secure.

 

Its been done, huh?

Should take you even less than 5 minutes, then

So which rights are unalienable but not inalienable?

 

You claim to be the one with all the knowledge. You claim that a principle our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure never existed and never will. You've read this thread and you still don't know? For crying out loud, you have been given one example after another after you tapped out.

At this juncture, you have one of two choices. Read the thread OR admit you were wrong. You've already tapped out. If it makes it any easier, I accept your admission of defeat. Maybe then, we could move forward with the discussion.

You got one thing you wanted: you derailed my thread with your childish antics. You have proven you can take a giant sh!+ on the rules of this board (the ones that say you can't troll) and get away with it. If it's any consolation, I trade victories with you. I'd like to know I could make your life a miserable Hell for chits and giggles and the mods would allow me to get away with it.

If we go back to the time before you wanted to derail this thread and had a productive conversation, I would have been glad to have a civil discourse with you. But, you keep coming here under different names pretending to have a monopoly on the understanding of subjects you don't know the first thing about. It took me over forty years to learn what I know. I had to read over 1600 books, go into many courtrooms, talk to a lot of people.

Time for you to do your own research. The bottom line, and you will never understand the answer BTW, is it is EITHER / OR but never both. The legal definition of a license is permission from a governmental entity to do that which is otherwise illegal to do.

 

So no list of unalienable but not inalienable rights, then? How predictable.

Rant all you want, claim your false victories, but you have absolutely, categorically and utterly failed to even produce the parameters of the test you set. Thereby actually proving my point that there is no difference between the two concepts.

Bye

 

9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The rights don't *have* to be listed. The people retain them *all* based on the 9th Amendment! If you have a question about a specific right all you have to do is ask.

 

This has been a difficult topic to discuss and I had hoped to discuss it with people that would benefit from it rather than to argue over it.

Due to the complex nature of unalienable Rights, it is easy to demagogue the principle as we witnessed with the guy trolling this thread. You're right, we don't need to list all rights; however, my Albert Gallatin quote was the best one that expressed the idea that the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence were codified into the Bill of Rights.

The whole subject gets tricky because the left argues that if someone can take a Right away from you, it is not unalienable at all. This simple minded thinking precludes people from being able to understand that the lawful function of government is to protect those Rights and discourage others from taking them. You have a Right to life, but it in no way means that someone out there cannot take your life. But, the proper role in government is discourage others from taking your life and making sure that if someone endangers your unalienable Rights, then they are taken out of society. Then the demagogues argue, what about the killer's unalienable Rights?

They simply won't admit that if you have two people in society, if one jeopardizes the Rights of his fellow man, society has to hold the aggressor accountable and stop them lest all of society becomes a victim. In other words, you have a Right to life, but if someone is trying to take your life and you kill them, one or the other was going to die. If you kill an aggressor or the system takes him out, he made the decision to end his life or get incarcerated (whether at your hands or the court's.)

The courts have no jurisdiction over unalienable Rights. They've ruled as such. What the courts and our system in general did, was to illegally ratify the 14th Amendment and reduce all your Rights to mere privileges and immunities. Notice that the 14th Amendment purportedly made non-whites born in the United States citizens of the United States. In reality, the 14th Amendment was an attempt to reduce your Rights to inalienable rights (government granted rights.) That is why, despite ALL of the many court precedents ruling that unalienable Rights, in this case the Second Amendment, were above the reach of the government.

The left and misguided laymen try to argue that unalienable and inalienable are the same; however, over the last 190 posts we have demonstrated that the courts have treated the two words differently AND when the government has attacked the Bill of Rights, they always do so on the basis of inalienable rights - NEVER unalienable Rights. It's quite complex, but if there is interest, we can examine it a bit deeper.

 

FYI

Resister has asked me to produce a Supreme court limitation of any unalienable right, because he says only inalienable rights can be limited and the SC has only ever ruled to support limitation of inalienable rights. In order to satisfy his request I have asked him to clarify which rights are unalienable rather than inalienable.

Resister has been unable to do so.

The reason why is because he knows there is no difference in terminology and has been making wayward and insulting rants to avoid admitting he was wrong.

(I suspect R originally got confused between unenumerated and unalienated, which is fine and an easy error to make, but for whatever reason he insists there is a difference between unalienable and inalienable rights and that I am stupid and ignorant for suggesting otherwise.)

Indeed, your post described "all" rights singularly and that would indicate that there is no legal distinction between unalienable and inalienable rights.

However, if you are of a different view I would be quite happy to examine your own list of rights that are unalienable but not inalienable.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/barack-obama-unalienable-inalienable-gun-control/index.html

"Inalienable vs Unalienable"

********************************************************

"To start, the words mean the same thing. "Inalienable" has gained a stronger foothold in modern times, but both appear without distinction on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary website, which defines them as signifying that which is "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred."Jan 6, 2016"

 

Your lies are sickening, disgusting and again your trolling is beyond the pale of reason.

ANY dumb a** with an IQ larger than their shoe size can see that I have cited over 100 court decisions and probably an equal number of founding fathers statements showing that unalienable Rights cannot be aliened and are, in the court's words, "above the law." If you are at least as smart to have such an IQ, you can read the thread and see that.

OTOH, when the courts have applied the terminology "inalienable" it has been applied differently. For example:

“(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)

Can you see that, Latherty? Do you understand what the judge said? Let me spell it out for you. The state, in 1987, says that they see themselves (the state) as being the source of inalienable Rights. Do you understand that? Do we need to poll a hundred posters to convince you of the FACT that the United States Supreme Court ruled that the state is the source of inalienable rights?

Now, let us ask the United States Supreme Court about an unalienable Right, but first show you what an unalienable Right is:

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

Albert Gallatin (7 Oct. 1789)

Do you see how the founding fathers perceived the BILL OF RIGHTS? How did the early courts rule on the Bill of Rights?

"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)

CLEARLY, in 1875 the Supreme Court acknowledges that the Second Amendment is an unalienable Right. The court says the Second Amendment is NOT a right granted by the Constitution (yet they are saying the Right exists); the Right is NOT dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. Those defining words are a Hell of lot different than the inalienable rights mentioned in the 1987 ruling.

In 1987, the Supreme Court rules that the state perceives it is the source of all rights. They perceive wrong as earlier courts ruled that unalienable Rights are above the law. Again, I've cited over 100 cases, founding fathers statements, etc. to that effect. Matter of FACT, this entire post is a rehash of previously posted citations... nothing new here.

You claimed that I asked you for a Supreme Court cite to show an unalienable Right is subject to limitation. You're lying and the point is, those interested in this fight have already weighed in and agreed that you are lying. Let me quote what was said in my challenge:


IF Lathery can produce one, single, solitary court case citation wherein any court at the federal level has stated that an unalienable Right is subject to limitation or forfeiture (except for punishment for a crime - and then such forfeiture is only constitutional for the duration of the sentence in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic such as ours) he will own this thread. If, he cannot, will have to walk away knowing that he has been blowing smoke up your a**. I have shown that every time the courts limit your Rights, they use the word inalienable.

There are posts here over twenty paragraphs in length describing the difference between inalienable rights and unalienable Rights. You are the only person on this thread that don't acknowledge it. If I tell you again, I will just end up repeating what is in this thread.

You keep wanting to claim what I could prove and what I couldn't, but I've done it to you yet again. You keep trolling and you keep failing. NO COURT IN ANY JURISDICTION HAS EVER RULED THEY CAN LIMIT AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT. No sir. The courts ruled on limitations on inalienable rights and usurped your Rights by ruling that the state is the source of all rights... which is contradictory to EVERY ONE OF THE EARLIEST (FIRST) RULINGS BY ALL COURTS, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

YOU FAIL AGAIN.

 

And your link is wrong. Since you too, won't read the freaking thread, read my last response to the other guy that wants to troll this thread. Since you're in such an all fired hurry to prove me wrong, take the challenge.

 

The ignore button takes care of all that.

 

You're right, but I am getting frustrated. The board rules have consequences for trolling, except this guy is immune no matter how many times you report it. Fact is, one moderator is now threatening me for complaining about this degree of trolling. He obviously has a license to troll, but every once in a while I will check in and remind him that nobody agrees with what he's said - except maybe friends in high places.

I'd bet my last dollar that guy and Vegas Giants are one in the same.

Back to the point. George Washington warned:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." (farewell address)

By reducing unalienable Rights to mere privileges and then referring to them as inalienable rights (rights granted by government) we are witnessing the fall of the Republic. There is even an element in society that truly believes that groups of men decide the fate of individuals. How long before they dictate where we work, what hobbies we can engage in, what religion to believe in, etc.? Just by watching the trolls on this thread you get a sense of the degree of control they would exercise if they could.

One would think that the average person could understand that in a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic its citizenry would recognize an inalienable right from an unalienable Right. Inalienable right - You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent. Unalienable Right - "shall make no law," shall not be infringed, No Soldier shall, the Right of the people..."

 

Suppressing rights is *NOT* the same thing as taking them away. If rights *could* be taken away then it implies that we live based on the Law of the Jungle instead of the Rule of Law. Executing killers *is* a difficult subject. I prefer to think about John Locke on the subject. Those that violate the rights of others can be defended against, it's part of natural law. When that violation of rights rises to the level of being done by a rabid dog then society has the right to dispose of that rabid dog. Natural law and unalienable rights do not take away the right to defend yourself, even if that means killing your attacker.

Grammatically, there isn't much difference between inalienable and unalienable. The grammar rules say you use "un" for words with Germanic roots (i.e. English derivation) and "in" for words with Latin roots.

The problem isn't the word that is being used. The *problem* is that the liberals want us to believe that rights flow from government and "society" instead of from the Creator through natural law. Getting health care from someone else is *NOT* any kind of inherent right. The only right to healthcare you have is that you can provide to yourself. Anything else is an entitlement. Rights are those things you can exercise without putting a burden on someone else. Entitlements are those things you can only exercise by putting a burden on someone else. When you force burdens on others, especially using government force, you have made those others into your slaves. Once again you wind up back at the Law of the Jungle where the mob rules!

The courts have been inexorably moving toward the view that rights flow from government for over 60 years - when Marxist principles began to invade the consciousness of the American public. Once you have that view then restricting individual rights becomes not only possible but a requisite!

The point is that rights are *individual* rights and not collective rights. Collective rights are, once again, nothing more than mob rule. The mob, in the form of the court, cannot "take" individual rights, they can only suppress them. And suppression of rights is part and parcel of tyranny.

 

There *is* no difference between "in" and "un".

 

The point that they cannot be surrendered is important. The left is always saying that we must surrender our individual rights for the benefit of the collective. We cannot surrender our individual rights. The collective can suppress them but that is tyranny.

 

go here: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-unv1.htm

"un" and "in" only have to do with the root of the word being modified. They both mean the same thing.