Constitutional Amendment to Protect our Inalienable Rights

It is our "mission statement" as civil Persons in our republic. It is what we should be doing with socialism.

 

No, it's not. Read it again.




​

 

Yes, it is what we are supposed to be doing with socialism as Posterity.

 

In truth there is much to know if one is to read the US Constitution. For example the Preamble refers to the "Blessings of Liberty" while "Liberty" is the "Freedom to Act" but that would, without any constraints, also includes the "freedom to violate the rights of others." Absolute "Liberty" is based upon the "law of the jungle" where might makes right. Under the US Constitution "Liberty" is limited to the "Freedom to exercise an Inalienable Right." Government itself imposes limitations upon our "Liberty" as necessary because without those limitations people would violate the Inalienable Rights of others but, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the purpose of government it to protect our Inalienable Rights from violation by others in society.

The US Constitution, while well written, without the Declaration of Independence the US Constitution lacks any direction or purpose. It is only as the Supreme Law of the Land based upon the Declaration of Independence that it makes sense.

 

The Constitution cannot protect your rights. The Constitution is a contract that limits government power. Your rights exist as a primary and superior position over government and are inalienable meaning you cannot lose them regardless of laws.
None of this means a hill of beans though if the people are not willing to stand up and defend those rights themselves.
Unfortunately, today you will not find one in a hundred people who have the courage to stand up for their own rights.

 

Securing the Blessings of Liberty via our Ninth and Tenth Amendments should be a valid defense for natural rights.

 

State Constitutions recognize and secure natural rights which are available via due process in federal venues.

What gun rights are you referring to? A natural right to acquire and possess Arms is not the same as keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union. Only well regulated Militias may not be Infringed in the latter.

 

Our constitution makes very good sense. The purpose of the constitution is to spell out the terms of how we all agree to get along and work together in peace, for justice, towards our general well being and protection, and to secure the good stuff that comes from a free society. It says so right in the preamble, the words are very clear.

How we resolve conflicts between your freedom to act and my freedom to not be acted upon are dealt with as best we can in the body of the document. Resolution tools are described so that the document can also be amended and supported with more agreements. But no where does it guarantee anyone absolute liberty or require you to differentiate between natural and civil rights.

Anyone who tells you won't be able to understand our constitution without changing the meaning of the words written there is trying to sell you something.




​

 

Both the Preamble and Article 1, provide the Intent for which direction latitude of construction must be preferred.

 

The US Constitution does both. It limits the exercise of government power as well as providing protections of our Inalienable Rights and it is enforced by the Supreme Court.

You are absolutely correct in stating our Inalienable Rights cannot be lost but they are not Inviolable Rights and they can be violated by government but more importantly they can also be violated by other individuals. The greatest purpose of the US Constitution is to protect us from the actions of other individuals in society as opposed to protecting us from the actions of government and many seem to forget that fact. The very purpose of government as expressed in the Declaration of Independence is to protect our Inalienable Rights from the violation by others in society. If that was not the primary purpose then there is no real reason for government at all.

Fortunately, because the protection of our Inalienable Rights (as protected by the US Constitution) is enforced by the Courts, with the Supreme Court being the final arbitrator, we only require one person to actually stand up for our Rights. Individuals file lawsuits based upon the violation of their individual Rights and that issue is litigated and establishes precedent throughout the land.

For example it was Edith Windsor that was ultimately responsible for the striking down of DOMA Section 3 that denied equal protection under the federal laws for legally married same-sex couples and that established the legal precedent for striking down prohibitions against same-sex marriage under state laws. One person fighting for their Constitutionally protected rights changed the legal precedent throughout the United States.

Sadly we don't teach Americans about "Inalienable Rights" and I've found few that even understand them. Perhaps my best example is that most Americans believe that the "statutory laws of ownership" reflect the "Inalienable Right of Property" but in truth most of our "statutory laws of property" violate or allow the violation of the "Inalienable (natural) Right of Property" as established by John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter V. Most understand the statutory laws of property but very few ever consider or understand the "Inalienable (natural) Right of Property" that the statutory laws more often than not violate or allow to be violated.

But the point is well made that we need to educate the American People as they are very uninformed when it comes to their Inalienable Rights as they rarely even understand them. A person cannot "stand up for their own rights" if they don't have a clue about what an Inalienable Right actually is. In many cases Americans are actually advocating for the violations of the Inalienable Rights of the Person because they're so ignorant of what an Inalienable Rights really is.

In my proposal I'm actually hoping that at least one Supreme Court justice actually knows and understands what an Inalienable Right actually is and that this single justice can protect us.... but I'm not all that hopeful that even our Supreme Court justices, arguably some of the most learned men in the United States when it comes to the law, actually know what an Inalienable Right actually is.

 

The Preamble of the Constitution, like any preamble, provides a broad overview of that which is to follow. Article I merely addresses the legislature and not all powers or protections afforded by the Constitution and it has also been affected by Amendments over time. For example the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment imposed a mandate upon the US Congress to pass legislation to protect our Rights as a Person such as the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's. "Equal protection under the law" is not a passive requirement but instead imposes a proactive mandate on our government to provide laws that protect the equality of the People.

 

Once again the "purpose" of the US Constitution is the Preamble as a "preamble" establishes the purpose of a document by definition. It doesn't provide details on the "how" or even the "what" but instead provides an overview.

For example the Preamble refers to the "general welfare" while Article I Section 8 clarifies that to establish the "Welfare of the (United) States" (not the people of the United States).

I would agree with you that "changing the meanings of the words" is problematic and I will also provide an example of that.

In Article 2 of the Constitution it establishes the requirement of "natural born citizenship" for the office of the president. This clause refers to the "Natural" or "Inalienable" Right of Citizenship of the Person. It is not a "statutory right" but instead it's an "inalienable right" of citizenship. As with any inalienable right it must be "inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, not violate the rights of another person, and not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person." As the US Supreme Court determined in the case of the US v Kim Wong Ark a person is a natural born citizen based upon Jus Soli alone and that the statutory laws of the United States cannot change this Inalienable Right of Citizenship of the Person. Many Americans today argue that "natural born citizenship" can be established under statutory laws passed by Congress but this ignores the meaning of the word "natural" completely as laws are not "natural" and by any definition. A person is NOT a natural born citizen based upon the fact that their parent(s) might be a citizen because the "natural (inalienable) right of citizenship" cannot be dependenty upon another person and the parent is another person. The founders knew this when they authored Article 2 of the US Constitution, the States understood this when they ratified the 14th Amendment, and the Supreme Court understood this when they decided the case of the US v Kim Wong Ark so why are there those today that don't understand it? Only a person born within one of the 50 States today (or a territory that becomes a State in the future) is a "natural born citizen" of the United States. The statutory laws passed by Congress cannot change this because it refers to the "natural (inalienable) right" of the person.

 

It also lays the path of the Intention of our Founding Fathers. You may have noticed that both terms, promote and provide for the general welfare are declared in our federal Constitution. Promote the general welfare is in our mission statement and preamble, and Provide for the general welfare is in Article 1.

Thus, latitude of construction can only go in that direction and not in the direction of denials and disparagements to our civil liberties via social spending.

 

Why do you believe that? Providing for the general welfare of the United States is providing for the general welfare of We the people of the United States.

 

Inalienable means it cannot be taken away from you. A person can be stripped of citizenship. Citizenship is not inalienable. A preamble is an introductory statement. It's common to state your purpose in introductory statements.




​

 

Well said.

Rights are simply what a person feels is due them. There are many things we feel we are due, whether government existed or not. Life and liberty being two. That we can agree on that is a good thing, and working towards that means we can secure those rights. But it's the work not the agreement that matters.

Agreements protect what we believe is due us, only as long folks decide to hold to that agreement and act in accordance with it.



​

 

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are natural rights; citizenship is a privilege and immunity.

 

... wow. I think you've actually said something I can agree with.





​

 

The states, not the federal government, are responsible for the "welfare of the people" under the enunerated powers granted by they US Constitution. While the federal government may provide services, such as national defense or the coinage of money (or the printing of notes that promise payment in money that we cannot collect) that benefit the "states" and ultimately the American People that is not the enumerated role or responsibility of the federal government. The federal government is a "subcontracted entity" that provides for the common welfare of the states based upon authorizations granted to the States by the People in the State Constitutions.

By analogy I've often used the example of an automotive repair shop. A person takes their car to the shop and authorizes it, in writing, to perform a brake job. (This is what the People do in their respective State Constitutions) Then several automotive repairs shops contract to create a "machine shop" that provides for the turning of the brake rotors because it's too expensive for each shop to have it's own machine shop. (The States created the federal government and not the People to do that which all of the States need done but that they can't do individually). The repair contract by the person authorizes the automotive shop to subcontract the turning of the rotors to the machine shop. (The State Constitutions authorize the States to "subcontract" responsibilities to the federal government and the US Constitution is the written contract). The automotive shop cannot subcontract work to the machine shop that is not authorized by the repair contract regardless of how much the car might need to the work. (The States cannot delegate a role to the Federal government that isn't first delegated to them by the State Constitution by the People)

 

This is false when addressing the "Natural (Inalienable) Rights" of the Person. Inalienable (Natural) Rights are not determined by public opinion but instead are based upon a simple criteria.

An "Inalienable (Natural) Right" is that which is inherent in a person, not dependent upon another person, does not violate the rights of another person, nor does it impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.

In fact the criteria of "due them" instantly raises the question of "who has the obligation to provide that which is due" because if an involuntary obligation is being created then the person has no "Right" related to it. An infant has a "Right to Eat" but it doesn't have a "Right to be Fed" because the feeding of the infant imposes an obligation upon someone else to provide the food. It is not "due food" based upon a "Right" and our laws reflect that. Only when the parent(s) or a legal guardian assume a voluntary obligation to care for the child do they assume a statutory obligation to feed the child. Any woman and leave her new-born infant at the hospital refusing to accept the legal obligation to care for the child and she is never held accountable for feeding the child. The child doesn't have the Right to be Fed but under our laws a statutory obligation to feed the child based upon the voluntary obligation of the parent(s) or guardian is established. The child is not "due" the food based upon any Right of the Person regardless of public opinion to the contrary.

Citizenship is a "natural (inalienable) right" based upon the criteria above. It is established based upon the physical location of birth (Jus Soli: Latin - the Right of Soil). It doesn't matter who the parent(s) are (as it cannot be dependent upon another person). The birth of the child doesn't infringe upon any other person's Rights and the birth of the child does not create any involuntary obligations upon another person (although we have voluntary obligations related to the child imposed by voluntary statutory laws). The natural right of citizenship has not only been addressed in the US Constitution (i.e. Article 2 that refers to "natural born citizenship") but has also been clarified by the 14th Amendment that protects the Right of Citizenship based upon a child being born in the United States (not territories of the United States or in foreign countries) and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Statutory laws cannot violate the US Constitution and the issue of "natural born citizen" was addressed in the Supreme Court case of the US v Kim Wong Ark where statutory laws would have denied Kim Wong Ark of his Inalienable Right of US Citizenship protected by the US Constitution.

Jus Soli is the only form of citizenship that establishes the "Inalienable (Natural) Right of Citizenship" because it meets all of the criteria of an Inalienable Right of the Person. Today only a person born in one of the 50 States is a "Natural Born Citizen" of the United States because all other forms of US Citizenship are based upon statutory laws as opposed to an "Inalienable (Natural) Right" of the Person.

I'm not sure of whether there are any situations that allow a natural born citizen to have their US citizenship stripped from them by statutory laws. If such a law does exist then they clearly violate the Constitutional precedent established in the case of the US v Kim Wong Ark where the Supreme Court ruled that statutory laws cannot violate the Constitutionally protected right of "natural born citizenship" that has always existed under the US Constitution.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649

 

The misconceptions of rights and the Constitution are astounding.

 

You confuse Inalienable with Inviolable. While an Inalienable Right cannot be taken away from the person it can be Violated by both government and People.

To my knowledge there are no laws that can strip a natural born citizen of their Inalienable Right of Citizenship established by Jus Soli that is protected by the 14th Amendment. As I noted the case of the US v Kim Wong Ark addressed this very issue as the statutory laws would have stripped Kim Wong Ark of his Inalienable Right of Citizenhship.

There is no disagreement between us on this issue but the Preamble does not establish the Social Contract upon which America was founded and that is the foundation for the US Constitution. That is contained in these two lines from the Declaration of Independence.

The "purpose of government" is to protect our Inalienable Rights and it's "Powers" to protect us are derived from the consent of the governed. Of note that includes everyone, not just US citizens but also permanent immigrant residents, living under the jurisdiction of the government of the United States. I know that "social-conservatives" will choke on that fact but the Declaration of Independence doesn't address "citizens and non-citizens" but instead addresses the Inalienable Rights of the Person regardless of citizenship.

 

So what? Fixing Standards for the Union is delegated to our federal Congress. I believe the general government should pay the debts of States meeting federal Standards for Infrastructure.

 

A right is (by definition) just that which we think you are owed or due. You can be due a freedom (natural right) or an entitlement (civil or legal right).

Our founding fathers believed there are certain freedoms that folks just naturally come to feel they are owed, without anyone promising them. Including the right to our natural life and our natural liberty. No contract promises these things and no person will provide them. Most folks just naturally feel we have a right to live without anyone telling us so and regardless of public opinion. And when someone tries to deny us that natural right, we feel we're wronged or cheated out of what we were owed. What we felt nature or God provided.

That's in contrast to entitlements, things we are promised (usually by a contract). Examples of civil rights include the right to vote, the right to a jury of peers, and the right to collect social security. Other legal rights may include the right to a book once a month (a right promised by our contract with BMC) and the right to $5 off our next purchase at subway (promised by the coupon/contract in my back pocket).




​

 

Move to north Korea, then join their military or accept a high level government position and your citizenship will be revoked. If you're convicted of treason, you can loose your citizenship. If you swear an oath of allegiance to a foreign power you can be stripped of your citizenship. There's a lot of ways to loose your citizenship.





​