SEE BELOW [COLOR="#FF0000"[B]]Merriam-Webster is NOT a legal dictionary nor do they issue legal rulings[/B][/COLOR]. " [I]I have a question. You pronounce “[B]unalienable[/B]" as “un-a-LEEN-able”…but the only pronunciation I’m aware of is “uhn-eyl-yuh-nuh-buh l” ([url]www.dictionary.com[/url]), as in alien, alienate, etc., with the accent always on the “a”. It could just be that it jars my musician’s ears (I was a professional violinist before becoming a software architect), but is there some specific reason you pronounce it that way? In any event, this is a minor quibble about an otherwise-invaluable discussion. A discussion, I fear, that our current Administration will move to suppress soon…I hope to God I’m wrong. Keep informing us. Best regards, Tom Hi Tom, Thanks for listening; thanks for the compliments. It’s not an accident that I pronounce “[B]unalienable[/B]” the way I do. I understand that most people pronounce it as you described and I understand that my “mis-pronouncing” the word will probably “jar” their “ear”. While most of the world seems to pronounce “unalienable” as “un-A-lee-un-a-ble,” I intentionally pronounce the word “un-a-LEEN-a-ble”. Why? Because the meanings of the words “inalienable” and “unalienable” are vastly different and I wish to make absolutely clear whenever I use the latter instead of the former. According to[B] Black’s Law Dictionary[/B] (8th Edition; A.D. 2004), the definition of “inalienable” is: “Not transferable or assignable. . . . Also termed [B]unalienable[/B]”. [B]Black‘s 8th[/B] does not even define “[B]unalienable[/B]” and would thus have us believe that the words “inalienable” and “unalienable” are synonymous. But if we go back to[B] Black‘s 2nd [/B](A.D. 1910) we’ll see that “inalienable” was defined as: “Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty.” [B]Black’s 2nd[/B] defines “[B]unalienable[/B]” as: “Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.” At first glance the two terms seem pretty much synonymous. However, while the word “inalienable” is “not subject to alienation,” the word “[B]unalienable” is “incapable of being aliened[/B]”. I believe the distinction between these two terms is this: “[B]Unalienable[/B]” is “incapable” of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something “[B]unalienable”[/B]. Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an “[B]unalienable[/B] Right”. it is impossible for you to take one of my [B]“unalienable[/B] rights”. It is likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my “[B]unalienable[/B] rights”. Once I have something “unalienable,” it’s impossible for me to get rid of it. It would be easier to give up the color of my eyes or my heart than to give up that which is [B]“unalienable[/B]”. That which is “inalienable,” on the other hand, is merely “not subject to alienation”. [B]Black’s 2nd[/B] does not declare that it’s absolutely impossible for that which is “inalienable” to be sold, transferred or assigned. Instead, I believe that “inalienable” merely means that “inalienable rights” are not subject to “alienation” by others. That is, no one can compel me to sell, abandon or transfer any of my “inalienable” rights. I am not “subject” to compelled “alienation” by others. But that leaves open the question of whether I may am entitled to voluntarily and unilaterally sell, transfer, abandon or otherwise surrender that which is “inalienable”. Thus, while it is impossible for me to abandon, or for government to take, my “[B]unalienable rights[/B],” it is possible for me to voluntarily waive my “inalienable” rights. I strongly suspect that our gov-co presumes that our rights are at best “inalienable,” and that since we have not expressly claimed them, we could have and therefore must have waived them. if we look at [B]Bouvier’s Law Dictionary[/B] (A.D. 1856) we’ll see: “INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are inalienable. There are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty or of speech.” “[B]UNALIENABLE[/B]. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government. [B]The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable[/B].” Clearly, the words are not synonymous. While “inalienable” rights can’t be “lawfully” transferred “to another,” they might nevertheless be waived by the holder or perhaps “unlawfully” (privately??) “transferred” to someone else. However, those rights which are “[B]unalienable” are absolutely incapable of being transferred lawfully, unlawfully, administratively, privately or by implication or operation of law[/B]. that which you have, which is “unalienable,” is your wrists in an absolute sense that cannot possibly be discarded, transferred, sold, or otherwise abandoned. Also, note that the word “[B]unalienable[/B]” describes things which are “not in commerce”. However, it appears that those things which are “inalienable” could be “in commerce”. as you know, much of the trouble we have with the modern government is based on government’s claim of power to regulate all that is involved in interstate commerce. In so far as you may be able to prove that any item or right you seek to use or exercise is [B]“unalienable,[/B]” that item or write would be beyond the power of our government to regulate under interstate commerce. You can see the power potential in [B]“unalienable[/B]”. Most importantly, as declared in the “Declaration of Independence,” all men are endowed by their Creator with certain[B] unalienable [/B]Rights. Our [B]unalienable rights flow from God and are not subject to man’s meddling. Bouvier’s agrees by defining “unalienable” as including our “natural” rights (which flow from “nature’s God”.[/B] Admittedly, both “inalienable” and “[B]unalienable[/B]” are defined to include the concept of “liberty”. Thus, there is some confusion, some overlap, in the two definitions. Some things may be both “inalienable and also [B]“unalienable[/B]”. Therefore, my argument about the distinctions between the two terms is not necessarily as pristine as I would like. Nevertheless, [B]the two terms are significantly different and virtually all of the real power will be found in the word “unalienable” [/B]rather than in the word “inalienable”. Those things which are “[B]unalienable[/B]” are [B]from God[/B], outside of commerce, and impossible to “alienate” by external force or by personal consent. “Inalienable” offers no advantages that I’m able to see as compared to “[B]unalienable[/B]”. “Inalienable” offers some possible disadvantages such as the possibility that you might be allowed to voluntarily waive whatever “inalienable” rights you possess. I conclude that while there may be some confusion between the two terms, [B]“unalienable[/B]” offers great and [B]absolute power[/B] while “inalienable” is far weaker, more conditional, and probably subject to at least some “alienation”. So why take a chance? Why not make it your business to ensure that every time you have a chance to use one word or the other you always choose to use “[B]unalienable[/B]”? Why not use the exact word (“unalienable” that was used by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence? While the words “inalienable” and [B]“unalienable[/B]” have significantly different meanings, their “sounds” are almost identical and only a highly-tuned “ear” will note the distinction in sound and then meaning between them. I believe our modern gov-co fears and detests “[B]unalienable[/B]” but doesn’t much mind that we use the word “inalienable”. The first term is lethal to gov-co powers; the second is not particularly threatening. I visited the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC about five years ago. I was amazed to see that the Jefferson Memorial includes an excerpt from the “Declaration of Independence” attributed to Jefferson that referred to our “inalienable Rights”. But [B]the text of the Declaration of Independence” expressly refers to our “unalienable Rights”. Thus, the “Declaration of Independence” is misquoted in 12″ high letters that are carved in stone. I couldn’t be more surprised if the gov-co has misspelled Jefferson’s name.[/B] I cannot believe that the designers and builders of the Jefferson Memorial misspelled “[B]unalienable[/B]” or “accidentally” replaced “[B]unalienable[/B]” with “inalienable”. This change was done intentionally and because the word “inalienable” is trivial while the word “[B]unalienable[/B]” is powerful to a spiritual degree. I am discouraged to realize that tens of millions (maybe hundreds of millions) of Americans have visited the Jefferson Memorial without realizing that “inalienable” had been substituted for [B]“unalienable[/B]”. I doubt that I’m the first to recognize that substitution, but I’ve never heard of anyone previously understanding and objecting to that substitution. The difference between “inalienable” and “[B]unalienable[/B]” is similar to the difference between a bean blower and a 50 caliber rifle. They both fire projectiles, but where the flying beans are virtually harmless, the 50 caliber bullets are absolutely lethal. Therefore, I intentionally “mispronunciate” (as our former President Bush might say) the word “[B]unalienable[/B]” to “jar” each listener’s “ear” and make absolutely clear that they’ve just heard the explosive “BOOM!” of a 50 caliber rifle every time I “pull the trigger” and not a mere bean blower’s “phfffft[/I]”. [url]https://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/unalienable-vs-inalienable/[/url] [COLOR="#000000"]MAYBE NOW THAT YOU HAVE THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LINK, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THE OTHER POSTERS REALIZE YOU'VE BEEN BLOWING SMOKE.[/COLOR]
Then let us respond with something you will more easily understand. Shut up. Do not post any further. No one cares what you have to say. No one believes what you have to say. No one cares whether or not you are actually correct. Simply shut up already.
In the United States, there are various methods of constitutional interpretation: Textualism involves judges consulting the actual language of the Constitution first, pondering about its meaning, and then using this standard as their final judgment. Government scholar John E. Finn wrote that this approach has "obvious appeal" for its simplicity but can be hampered when the language of the Constitution itself is ambiguous.[1]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation
Pure freaking idiocy. Everything this lady sees that proves her wrong is right wing fantasy. How absolutely idiotic.
Sixteen Reasons that danielpalos is wrong 1 - Thomas Jefferson: On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. Thomas Jefferson 2 - 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. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield. George Washington (Farewell Address) 3 - [A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity. George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights 4 - Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can. Samuel Adams, American statesman, political philosopher and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States 5 - 17th-century Englishman John Locke, philosopher discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract Preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property was claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights 6 - 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. 7 - 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 (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence which is at the head of the U.S. Code, the official laws of the United States and has been used as precedent in over 100 cases all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.) Unalienable rights are described as the same natural inherent and absolute Rights listed in numbers 3, 4, 5, and six of this list 8 - " Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the Creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights. 9 - Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights[/B]. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101. You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights. 10 - "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... Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) was a Georgia state supreme court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the .Second Amendment This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds 11 - The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. 1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 12 - "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, at 401-402 (1859) 13 - "To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (187 14 - "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp.(*)253. (a) The Amendments prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clauses text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp.(*)222." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200 15 - individual self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment right ...elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010) 16 - "In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. ...Madison argued that a declaration of rights would help install the judiciary as "guardians" of(*) individual rights against the other branches". http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html Regardless of danielpalos attempts to spin the law, the above proves, directly from the founding fathers to standing precedents in law that: A) You have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms B) Your right to keep and bear Arms is absolute and you do NOT derive the Right from the state C) You do not have to be in the militia to keep and bear Arms; neither does a militiaman have any special Rights over the citizen in keeping and bearing Arms D) Unalienable Rights absolutely are not secured by the state; they are merely acknowledged by the state. States only recognize inalienable rights at the state level E) Unalienable Rights cannot be forfeited and the state has no authority to take away an unalienable Right. Inalienable rights, on the other hand, can be forfeited or taken away by the government This is the law. It is not "propaganda," right wing fantasy, rhetoric or any of the few other terms danielpalos can come up with. Unless she can show you a standing statute, court decision or something other than a layman's explanation, the above constitutes the basic laws she keeps chattering about. Every time she comes back with her one line zingers (the same old, same old) we can quote this post and demonstrate by number WHY this individual has proven she cannot read. danielpalos has stated you cannot appeal to her ignorance of the law. She's wrong and she knows it. She has proven to be clueless, causeless, and living in a world of fantasy with just enough room for her. Even liberals that hate guns don't come rushing to her defense. Don't it make you wonder why?
This should be game, set, match. But it won't be. She knows she's wrong, but she's a troll and will continue with her troll nonsense.
You have nothing but propaganda and rhetoric. This is a direct quote, from a State supreme law of the land. It will stand up in any Court in the US. - - - Updated - - - unalienable and inalienable, are synonyms. only the right never gets it.
dainelpalos then comes back with the following: "any actual and direct rebuttal to this? In the United States, there are various methods of constitutional interpretation: Textualism involves judges consulting the actual language of the Constitution first, pondering about its meaning, and then using this standard as their final judgement. Government scholar John E. Finn wrote that this approach has "obvious appeal" for its simplicity but can be hampered when the language of the Constitution itself is ambiguous.[1]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation..." RESPONSE: My response is that the United States Supreme Court looked at what you said. They applied the standards and YOUR POSITION LOST. It's that damn simple. You're a Democrat until a democratic vote is taken, but the bottom line is, the courts took into account what you just said and they made a determination. THE MAJORITY OF THE JUSTICES SAID YOU WERE WRONG!!!! Next danielpalos comes up with this: "You have nothing but propaganda and rhetoric. This is a direct quote, from a State supreme law of the land. It will stand up in any Court in the US." RESPONSE: There ought to be a limit on abject outright STUPIDITY. Unless you are deaf, dumb, blind and stupid, a state constitutional provision is NOT THE SUPREME LAW OF ANY LAND. IT HAS NO AUTHORITY OUTSIDE THE STATE THAT IT GOVERNS; even case law from one state is only persuasive authority outside the state in which the opinion is issued. This damn foolishness has gone on long enough. Is there one person on this entire board that cannot understand the difference between inalienable and unalienable according to the laws of our nation? danielpalos argues for inalienable rights because she is in love with the concept of a government / God... That is where she and I part company. She can't even accept the reality that the United States Supreme Court has considered the opinions of the minority, voted accordingly AND danielpalos side LOST! End of story. If anyone on this board is promoting fallacies and fantasies, it is the person trolling this thread and being shown to be LYING and doing so deliberately.
Again. No one cares what you have to say. No one believes what you have to say. No one cares whether or not you are actually correct.
You lost because the united states supreme court overruled the tiny portion of the single state constitution that you cited, and rejected your cited methodology.
How many times do I have to explain it to you? A state constitution has NO authority outside the state in which enacts it. It has NONE whatsoever. Court cases from one state are persuasive authority in other states, but outside the state that decides the case, or in simpler terms - it is a suggestion that other states can look to for direction. "Authority' or 'primary authority' is divided into two types, mandatory and persuasive. (*)For authority to be mandatory, the court in your jurisdiction (determine jurisdiction at the outset even if the matter is not being litigated) MUST follow the legal rule(s) set forth in the authority you are relying on for your legal situation. Persuasive authority is everything else. (*)Secondary authority is always persuasive. (*)Do not rely on secondary authority unless there is absolutely no primary authority that supports your position." http://library.famu.edu/c.php?g=276173&p=1842542 http://www.courts.ca.gov/1003.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent#Persuasive_precedent "Primary authority can be: Mandatory: So the court must follow it. For a trial court, an example of mandatory authority would be a prior court decision by an appeals court that normally hears appeals from that particular trial court. For California courts, a decision by the California Supreme Court is(*)also mandatory. OR Persuasive: It means that the court has the option to follow it but does not have to. For example, a California state court is not required to follow a decision of a Nevada state court, but a Nevada judge may have used a line of reasoning in deciding a case that a California judge might find helpful." http://www.courts.ca.gov/1003.htm What you are providing is dissenting (LOSING OPINIONS) in court cases, the law of one state that has NO jurisdiction in another. Federal court rulings about constitutional issues or points of law always, always, always trump any state constitution, rulings of a state, or other state law. United States Supreme Court rulings are binding upon ALL lower courts be it federal, state, county, city, etc. The authorities that I am citing are the law and you have not provided one, single, solitary case, statute, holding, etc. higher than those presented to you. The Constitution of Illinois; the Supreme Court of Illinois; the laws of Illinois that may be in conflict with the Constitution of the United States are lower authority than federal court decisions (like the ones I quoted) and NOBODY over-rules the United States Supreme Court.
Case of Desegregation, the State decided not to obey Federal Law regarding Desegregation and the National Guard was activated and deployed to enforce the Law of the Land. States cannot oppose or contravene Civil Rights, such as Freedom of speech or Freedom of Religion.
you say that; but you have nothing but fallacy to support your currently, unsubstantiated opinion. - - - Updated - - - You don't have a clue or a Cause; we have a Tenth Amendment. - - - Updated - - - The don't have to; the concept of natural rights is the Same. only the right, never gets it. - - - Updated - - - Segregation was never actually found to be Constitutional. Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights, is gender and race neutral.
Well, here we are being trolled again, even as this has been explained to danielpalos. She wrote: "The don't have to; the concept of natural rights is the Same. only the right, never gets it." RESPONSE: It is the contention of danielpalos that state constitutions can grant natural rights (sic) to citizens in other states. That argument was totally destroyed in post # 469 and the only thing she comes up with is this disgusting charge that "only the right never gets it." One wonders how wrong this trolling individual can be. In my sixteen reasons why danielpalos is wrong, numbers 2 through 9 on the list are applicable. This has nothing to do with being on the right - except that I'm right and she is wrong. We have used the techniques taught by accredited law schools in this thread and I'm at a loss to figure out how this individual, under any pretense, can pretend that this is rhetoric, propaganda, etc. when the very examples she uses are blown out of the water by quotes from law schools - NOT POLITICAL SOURCES!!! This is not about right v left; it's about right v wrong and danielpalos has lost.
Yes; all States have an equivalent to this: All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. That Is the concept of natural rights, recognized in writing and secured via social justice in the Peoples' Court of <yourStateNamehere>. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Article 4, Section 2 was ratified by the several States in that capacity, as a Contractual obligation with the general government.
danielpalos - all of your objections have been addressed. The authority has been explained. You are wrong and it is not about right v left. It's right v wrong. You're wrong; you've been proven wrong. Read the reasons above.
You have nothing but fallacy to work with. I cited a State supreme law of the land. What law do you believe State Courts have to follow?
You cited nothing! Here it is from a previous post: "Persuasive: It means that the court has the option to follow it but does not have to. For example, a California state court is not required to follow a decision of a Nevada state court, but a Nevada judge may have used a line of reasoning in deciding a case that a California judge might find helpful." http://www.courts.ca.gov/1003.htm How is it that you cannot understand that example? How it is you don't understand that the link goes to the Judicial Branch of the California Courts? How in the Hell, and please explain it to us, HOW a link to a JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT IS A FALLACY? There is a limit to stupidity. There is something wrong here. Why do you persist in aggravating every poster when you are factually being proven wrong? How can the courts that have the authority to inform us of how the laws work know less than you? Who are you to tell them they are wrong? You're wrong. Let it go.
