|
|
Post by The Resister on Jul 20, 2023 19:34:36 GMT
"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
Today someone attempted to correct me about the usage and said I was wrong. He says "inalienable." It seems like a small matter, but it really isn't. After all, layman dictionaries say the words are synonymous. But, are they? Let's take a look at the facts:
The original word in the Declaration of Independence is unalienable. How have the courts defined your Rights?
“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)
“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. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
Unalienable Rights are defined as absolute, natural, inherent, and given by a Creator (aka God given.) Unalienable is the word used in the Declaration of Independence and entered into the United States Code - the official laws of the United States.
Now let us look at inalienable rights. How have the courts defined those rights?
“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)
Since I am most familiar with laws governing firearms, this is a good way to show, by example, what the difference is. In the first case to reach the United States Supreme Court regarding the Right to keep and bear Arms, the high court ruled:
“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)
The government cannot regulate the Right to keep and bear Arms because the Right existed before the government was formed. The government can only regulate the militia. That presumes that we live in a constitutional government as envisioned by the founders and framers. The government has NO authority to have you surrender an unalienable Right. Yet, I've shown that inalienable rights CAN be surrendered. The courts said so. Let's get complicated, however, and see what is really going on. In 2008 the United States Supreme Court issued the Heller decision. In that case the high Court held:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008)
Whoa, wait a minute. We just found out that the earlier court rulings (including those of the United States Supreme Court) held that we have absolute Rights. The word absolute is a synonym for unlimited. Do you see how the courts define words to get what they want? But, we know the justification of HOW the courts screwed us out of our Rights. It is related to the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment. Here it is:
"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." Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment
I see stuff about privileges, immunities, and even due process along with equal protection and not one word about Rights. The courts then invented this cockamamie doctrine called incorporation. The courts now claim that the Bill of Rights was "incorporated" into the Fourteenth Amendment. Simplified, you don't have unalienable Rights under this doctrine. All you have are revocable privileges that the government gives you. It is unconstitutional. To that end, the word unalienable is no longer defined in Black's Law Dictionary. For all intents and purposes in the current unconstitutional / illegal / de facto atmosphere that we live, the government does not acknowledge your constitutional guarantees. Here is an article related to incorporation:
constitutionstudy.com/2018/12/28/the-incorporation-doctrine/
The more you know...
|
|
|
|
Post by noclevername on Jul 21, 2023 3:18:51 GMT
A lot of the topics that are being brought up seem to be related to each other. Take a look at this. resisters.freeforums.net/thread/205/pesky-14th-amendmentMost people have never had a real civics course and have a hard time relating to the idea that what Thomas Jefferson said or intended is not how the law is applied today. The thing that matters is that courts interpret the law. They illegally and unconstitutionally change the meaning of the law and nobody has ever tried to put a stop to it. It has been called legislating from the bench on this board. It has not been a wasted lesson. At least one of us gets it now. The courts were empowered to interpret the law. When they reverse themselves they are legislating from the bench since the law never changed. The courts make up new definitions for words and apply other laws to get the result they want. It is corrupt and it is the way the game is played. |
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jul 22, 2023 4:04:24 GMT
In my mind this subject should not be that hard to understand:
1) John Locke defined his version of inalienable rights
2) Thomas Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence and used the synonym unalienable Rights to mean the same thing
3) American courts defined the term unalienable Rights in court cases
4) Unable to change so many court rulings that legally defined unalienable Rights, the powers that be began using the synonym inalienable to refer to a set of grants and privileges that the government replaced the Bill of Rights with (mostly based on the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment)
5) Today, in legal parlance, the term inalienable rights does not, repeat does not mean what Locke or Jefferson articulated. The courts have defined inalienable rights to refer to privileges and immunities granted in the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment. What the courts say a word or a term means in our times takes precedence over what founders, framers, or philosophers (like Locke) said it meant in their lifetimes. You cannot argue the words of Locke in a court of law. They have no legal authority. But, when a court uses the term inalienable and it means something different than what Locke or Jefferson said, the court holding is the law. Period
6) The word unalienable is the word used in the Declaration of Independence and the word unalienable has been held to mean an inherent, preexisting, natural, irrevocable, non-transferable, absolute, above the law and God given Right
7) The word unalienable is the word used in the United States Code - the official laws of the United States
8) The term inalienable rights has been ruled by the courts to mean a limited, revocable "right" granted by government (NOT a Creator as per the Declaration of Independence)
9) If you go into a court and try to argue that inalienable rights are above the law, absolute, non-tranferable, etc. then you will get laughed at
10) So corrupt is the system that the legal community removed the word unalienable from Black's Law Dictionary despite the fact that it is that word that is in the United States Code and legally defined in court cases.
Unalienable
|
|
lee
New Member
You have unalienable Rights from Jesus Christ our Creator; No Government can take it away.
Posts: 122
|
Post by lee on Jul 22, 2023 17:44:50 GMT
The word unalienable should be used as much as possible. If the powers that be are working hard against Liberty, the "We the People" must fight harder to keep our Liberties. Since that
The word unalienable is the word used in the United States Code - the official laws of the United States, this should be enough for people to understand. Unfortunately people do not read like they should. Why does the American Flags in Court room have gold around it?
|
|
|
|
Post by noclevername on Jul 24, 2023 18:41:36 GMT
The word unalienable should be used as much as possible. If the powers that be are working hard against Liberty, the "We the People" must fight harder to keep our Liberties. Since that The word unalienable is the word used in the United States Code - the official laws of the United States, this should be enough for people to understand. Unfortunately people do not read like they should. Why does the American Flags in Court room have gold around it? The gold on flags lets you know that you are under admiralty jurisdiction. That is a topic all on its own. You might want to start one and see if it attracts some new posters. This is just a way of looking at the unalienable issue. If you go to court and argue that you have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms then the precedents that apply to the word inalienable would apply. If you apply those precedents then the word inalienable does not mean what it did to our founders. That means you are not arguing for an unalienable right and that is why this is so important. When you argue for inalienable rights you are letting the court limit your rights and give them power over you. You should argue unalienable rights and make them stick to the court rulings that interpret that. Hope that makes sense to you. |
|
lee
New Member
You have unalienable Rights from Jesus Christ our Creator; No Government can take it away.
Posts: 122
|
Post by lee on Jul 25, 2023 12:40:52 GMT
What is a good Case represented in defense using Unalienable rights? You provided information I have never read anywhere else besides our Constitution.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Aug 12, 2023 17:06:20 GMT
What is a good Case represented in defense using Unalienable rights? You provided information I have never read anywhere else besides our Constitution. Excuse my tardiness. I don't understand the question. The case I'm most familiar with in illustrating what an unalienable Right has already been alluded to. Let me repeat it, bold some concepts and explain it: “ 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) The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right, guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, most notably the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government. It is much like the Ten Commandments with thou shalt nots for the governmemt. The United States Supreme Court HELD that the Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution. Furthermore, that Right is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. In other words, the Right exists without the Constitution. It is an unalienable Right, that is to say it is a preexisting Right that existed before the Constitution was ratified. All of the Bill of Rights did was to acknowledge God given Rights, limit the government so as to prohibit the government from infringing on them, and guarantee them to the citizenry. Since the Bill of Rights is not ten separate laws, but rather ONE " Bill" then whatever applies to one Right applies to all of them. The United States Supreme Court held that Rights are not dependent upon the government; however, in subsequent rulings the government claimed that they DID give you your Rights and they are " incorporated" into the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment. The illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment is about government created "rights." The government created rights and then incorporated the Bill of Rights into the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment. That allows the government to claim that " no right is unlimited." If you buy that line of horse dung, then plain and simple: you don't have any " rights." Your " rights" consist of privileges and immunities that the government grants and can limit, withhold, or even deny as it suits them... if it's being done on the premise that the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment constitutes law. My contention is that it is not law and you should NEVER, ever, under any circumstance pretend that the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment is valid law to be applied against the Bill of Rights. Does that clear the matter up for you? |
|
lee
New Member
You have unalienable Rights from Jesus Christ our Creator; No Government can take it away.
Posts: 122
|
Post by lee on Aug 14, 2023 23:52:50 GMT
For example, the illegally Ratified Fourteenth Amendment, how did it get passed into law with checks and balances? I understand the corruption is why, but how can we as a people alter this illegal ratification? The Federal Reserve was passed into Law of the evening of Christmas Eve, so everybody was with their families. I believe a nullifiication of any laws illegally passed is necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Aug 16, 2023 4:04:27 GMT
For example, the illegally Ratified Fourteenth Amendment, how did it get passed into law with checks and balances? I understand the corruption is why, but how can we as a people alter this illegal ratification? The Federal Reserve was passed into Law of the evening of Christmas Eve, so everybody was with their families. I believe a nullifiication of any laws illegally passed is necessary. I really hate trying to reinvent the wheel. Here is some historical information as to the illegality of the Fourteenth Amendment: www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/its-time-to-tell-the-truth-the-14th-amend-was-not-ratified/Now, there are some more points I would like to add to the above. The first thing is that Congress LIED about the reason (s) for creating the Fourteenth Amendment. We are told that the Fourteenth Amendment supposedly gave Blacks a " right" to vote. Bulll Freaking Shiite! The illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment first created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and Fourteenth Amendment citizens. Preamble Citizens have unalienable Rights that cannot be taken away by the government. Fourteenth Amendment citizens only have privileges and immunities as per the amendment. The next step was to put everyone into the jurisdiction of the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment. When they created the Sixteenth Amendment, people were issued a Socialist Surveillance Number ... ooops - " Social Security Number" AND the first ones had in bold letters across the top " NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." My late mother still had hers from the 1930s. Oddly, THAT is exactly how I got introduced into the patriot movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective.) Anyway, prior to the first SSNs being issued my grandfather (according to my grandmother and mother), attended political meetings wherein the people believed the SSN to be precursor to the Mark of the Beast. Fast forward about 75 years later and Americans are using the SSN for de facto national ID AND, as it turned out, the very people who criticized the use of the SSN for identification were the ones rallying behind the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap on the pretext it would save Americans from so - called " illegal aliens." It's had nearly a quarter of a century to work. Are you feeling safe now? Is the issue of " illegal immigration" any better for you? It wasn't the left, the communists, nor the globalists that screwed the American people. It was the right wing Tea Party Republicans. But, that is water under the bridge. The damage is done and you need to understand it. No matter where you go some half wit wants your " social." Your banker, baker, pharmacist, doctor, utility company, credit card company, dentist, school, college, landlord, and anyone else that you do financial dealings with all want your " social." Armed with that piece of information any Tom, Slick, or Harry can find out ANYTHING about you. ANYTHING! You could stop most stolen ID issues by refusing to give your SSN to anyone except the government and, then, ONLY when it pertains to income taxes. Your easiest solution is to encourage people to QUIT using the SSN for identification. There is a deeper reason why people should get involved in studying this: The federal government stole your individual sovereignty and your Preamble status by forcing people to use an SSN for identification. PRIOR to the War of Northern Aggression (aka the Civil War) slaves wore a metal identification tag around their necks. Today we are slaves with an SSN card in our wallet or purse. We don't have individual slave masters; we are owned by the United States Incorporated. We don't have Rights because people have unwittingly sold themselves into slavery by using the SSN AND having begged for it. You cannot ask to be made a slave and then not conform to the demands of your slave master. I can't do this topic justice in one posting. But, I wanted to answer you in very basic terms. You have to reclaim your Liberty. That means you fully understand what unalienable Rights are. You have to understand HOW you lost your Rights. You have to quit using the SSN for anything except its originally intended purpose. As a slave in the NEW WORLD ORDER, your Rights were incorporated into the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment. So, now the government presumes that they, not a Creator, gave you your " rights." Once you understand the problem, you are halfway to figuring out the path it takes to change course. That will become self evident. |
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 411 
|
Post by professorx on Aug 16, 2023 15:01:15 GMT
For example, the illegally Ratified Fourteenth Amendment, how did it get passed into law with checks and balances? I understand the corruption is why, but how can we as a people alter this illegal ratification? The Federal Reserve was passed into Law of the evening of Christmas Eve, so everybody was with their families. I believe a nullifiication of any laws illegally passed is necessary. lee, Hopefully you have gotten some background into understanding the problem. Let me add something and then proceed to tell you some possible solutions. You have probably read that in the 1970s up to about the year 2000 patriots were arguing in favor of securing their rights by way of their freeman status as preamble citizens. Then with the Real ID act the people agreed to make the ssn mandatory. Every citizen is required to have an ssn now because of those in the Tea Party and other republicans that forced that issue. It is a complicated issue now. You used to be able to rescind your ssn. Now you cannot. At least the feds think so. In order to reverse what has happened is to quit using the ssn for identification. When you use the ssn you are agreeing that the government owns you. Read this article. www.thelionstares.com/post/reality-society-history-of-your-social-security-number-the-number-that-tracks-you-as-a-commodityUnless and until we begin lobbying against the ssn as identification we will continue to be slaves. The Real ID act has to be repealed. You must quit using the ssn for any private business. Complain. Give people the right information. We must get back to the point where people were in the 1990s. In the 1990s civil libertarians were revoking their ssn and claiming their rights. The courts never ruled against patriots. They merely kept their cases in legal limbo. We have to make the government admit how they used the 14th to subject us to the power of an illegal government. |
|
lee
New Member
You have unalienable Rights from Jesus Christ our Creator; No Government can take it away.
Posts: 122
|
Post by lee on Aug 17, 2023 15:06:36 GMT
How can I or a group lobby? What is the law if I wanted to lobby against the SSN and Real ID act? I am very interested in lobbying in the favor of the people even though lobbying itself I see as an Evil in how the criminal government uses it. To my understanding the Patriot as well completely destroyed the opportunity of becoming a Preamble Citizen. I wish I could abolish my SSN and live completely free.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Aug 17, 2023 19:09:43 GMT
How can I or a group lobby? What is the law if I wanted to lobby against the SSN and Real ID act? I am very interested in lobbying in the favor of the people even though lobbying itself I see as an Evil in how the criminal government uses it. To my understanding the Patriot as well completely destroyed the opportunity of becoming a Preamble Citizen. I wish I could abolish my SSN and live completely free. Let me work in reverse order here and respond to your concern and your question: The whole SSN/ National ID / income tax thing is a scam that is built on fear, intimidation, deceit, lies, and force. The one thing that the system cannot force you to do is to use the SSN for private transactions. Don't do it. Deal in Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) which are jokingly called cash. Barter with gold, silver, ammunition, food, medical supplies, farm tools, or your labor, but stay away from the retail market as much as possible. I buy from flea markets, yard sales, trade shows, etc. and avoid debit and credit cards. That is legal. Don't use the SSN unless required by law. Lobbying - Referring people to this site in order to get the facts and the proper perspective on a given issue is a start. The link to this thread should be sent out every time you have an outgoing e mail. Next, you lobby by referring all of your local elected representatives and other politicians to this site with this strategy in mind: Take your state senator and / or state representative out to lunch once every other month. In between those lunches, be sending them an occasional link to the stuff you believe in - or better, do one page of your own thoughts and send them by U.S. Snail Mail, asking them for their view in return. The objective is to force them to read your communications. If they aren't reading what you send them, always take some written material for them to consider when you take them to lunch. If they can't have lunch with you, a fifteen minute face to face meeting once a month will suffice. Go to county and state level party meetings - ESPECIALLY the county Republican Party meetings and any Libertarian (or other third party meetings you might hear of.) Carry recruitment literature with you along with business cards. We've mentioned public polling that you can do that will help you identify like minded people in your area, depending on how they respond to your polling. At every opportunity make sure that the people you interact with understand that you are an activist, not a mere complainer. There are also call in radio talk shows where you can say three sentences that may generate a spark in a sleeping mind. I will do these things myself as we have in the past. Bear in mind my U.S. Congresscritter introduced the Fair Tax legislation based upon our lobbying efforts. We were reasonably effective until Trump turned Georgia blue. |
|
lee
New Member
You have unalienable Rights from Jesus Christ our Creator; No Government can take it away.
Posts: 122
|
Post by lee on Aug 19, 2023 16:46:33 GMT
I see the great benefit of lobbying do not get me wrong but both Republican and Democrats seriously abuse it. Then you have major Corporations using Lobbying as a legal means of bribery and whichever company pays the most wins the politician over. The Ethics Committee just approves mostly everything. I am currently reading a book called Mafia Democracy about our government. Lobbying is discussed in this book in great detail. I am very concerned, and the book also explains how many law makers go into lobbying after their time in office.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Oct 17, 2023 3:51:32 GMT
I sometimes have to get into a debate with experienced Internet Keyboard Commandos before I can remember what their arguments are against unalienable Rights. Give those dolts a dictionary and a thesaurus and they begin denying the fact that the courts redefine words in order to reach the conclusion they want. The Constitution does not confer such authority, but the courts do it. The legislators let them get away with it because they don't want to be the ones to tell you bad news and they don't want to be blamed for the subtle transformation of our government. I'd like to illustrate how the courts redefine words by using one of the best known examples - I know from first hand experience it works BTW: " The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that “shall” really means “may” – quite a surprise to attorneys who were taught in law school that “shall” means “must”. legalknowledgebase.com/shall-vs-must-supreme-court-caseMoral: The United States Supreme Court rules that certain words mean certain things and sometimes those certain things contradict the dictionary definition. In Thomas Jefferson's time the words inalienable and unalienable were synonyms. Today that is not true. In law they apply different meanings to the words inalienable and unalienable primarily because all the words defining an unalienable Right are inconsistent with the agenda the courts have with relation to the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment. Again, here is an example to illustrate my point: Go back to the OP (the very first post on this thread.) Notice that we defined unalienable Rights as being inherent, preexisting, natural, God given, irrevocable, absolute and above the law. That is the court holdings. Then look at the famous gun Rights case of Heller. The United States Supreme Court held: " Like most rights (sic) the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Notice they did not use the words unalienable, inherent, preexisting, natural, God given, irrevocable, absolute or above the law. They used the word unlimited because they had to use a word not legally defined in order to take away an existing Right. But, wait. The liberal hacks keep harping on the fact that the government is supposedly legally taking away your Rights. They cannot make a connection between an amendment that supposedly confers citizenship to Blacks acts as a tool to deprive you of your unalienable Rights. Don't call those Rights unalienable any longer. Call them inalienable and weaken their true meaning by asserting that the Constitution grants you Rights. Use semantics, but once you peel back their B.S. it is what it is. And where did it change by Rights bestowed upon you by a Creator to government granted privileges and immunities? If you read this thread, you already know that answer. Next up, we will examine another aspect of the liberal argument. |
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Oct 17, 2023 17:38:12 GMT
" A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1: 8 I was just in a semi-debate about this topic with a professional Internet Keyboard Commando. So, I have a lot to work with on this posting. His claims are as follows: The Bill of Rights is a document that empowers the government There is no such thing as unalienable Rights The Constitution is a " living document" Each of those declarations is FALSE. And those fallacies go to the core about why people are all patriotic on one hand and then buying into socialist / communist drivel on the other hand. Let us start with basic civics as taught in the publik skool system (Fonix doesn't work): " The Bill of Rights consists of 10 amendments that explicitly guarantee certain rights and protections to US citizens by limiting the power of the federal government." www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-revolution/creating-a-nation/a/the-bill-of-rightsIf you disagree with that statement, you may want to get involved in public education as that is a point that is taught in most schools to children. IF it's wrong, you have a duty to change it. Now, let us talk about unalienable Rights. John Quincy Adams was the second President of the United States. He stated: " 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." It's funny that we have a Declaration of Independence that proclaims that man is endowed by his Creator with unalienable Rights; we have numerous utterances by the founders or our country and the framers of the Constitution, but virtually nobody embraces the concept any longer. Even former patriots ultimately side with the socialists and communists. And why? There are three reasons: 1) Many have bought into the premise that we are democracy and when that is disproven, they resort to the debunked democratic republic verbiage 2) The system has the power to take your unalienable Rights even though they don't have the authority3) There are no unalienable Rights because someone can kill you and end your Right to Life and the government can amend the Constitution and repeal any Right you may have It is time for a reality check... America was founded on the presupposition that we have unalienable Rights. That does not mean that someone cannot take away your Rights. It means that men associate together and form a government so that the government can help secure those Rights. When someone attacks your unalienable Rights, the government steps in to insure your Rights are guaranteed. This does not mean that people cannot take away your Rights. It means that you don't have to fight alone (in theory) in order to protect them. When the government of this country was being built, it was presupposed that we had unalienable Rights. You can use the examples of how people can take those Rights, but you cannot change the presupposition. The next part of this is that when the government was being formed, the founders and framers believed that once your Rights ceased under a government you had a Right, a Duty and an obligation to throw off such government. I want you to think about this because we have to discuss what that means in my next posting. |
|
