Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think it had the potential to be really great- but somewhere near Salinas Lord, we let it slip away looking for that home we hoped to find- freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose, nothing ain't worth nothing but it's free-America was once the greatest nation on earth.
I think it had the potential to be really great- but somewhere near Salinas Lord, we let it slip away looking for that home we hoped to find- freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose, nothing ain't worth nothing but it's free-America was once the greatest nation on earth.
Land of the free- free is encumbered. Liberty and Justice for All- there are no caveats in "all". Rules and regulations encumber, on purpose- someone said in a different post if you don't something (whatever word was used)with the constitution you're a traitor- currently, then, there are 537 elected traitors in the District of Criminals, if the constitution is the bench mark- apparently that happens only when the opposition is in power.
Post your inalienable vs unalienable essay- let's see how confused the readers get.
the District of Criminals
Notice that I told you unalienable Rights are absolute.
the District of Criminals
oh, i'm so going to steal that one Gdjjr
Notice that I told you unalienable Rights are absolute.
Yes but, after i started reading the PA it dawned on me that the 'absolute' part wasn't all that absolute anymore Porter
~S~
the District of Criminals
oh, i'm so going to steal that one Gdjjr
Notice that I told you unalienable Rights are absolute.
Yes but, after i started reading the PA it dawned on me that the 'absolute' part wasn't all that absolute anymore Porter
~S~
The PA part??? Unalienable Rights are absolute, which is why it is the function of government to insure that those Rights are protected.
A back and forth in a different thread prompted this. There are several things that confuse me. I'm looking for clarity. The following is just the beginning.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of The United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
We're expected, as sponges for brains, to recite that in school, with our little hands over our little hearts, I suppose to add gravity to the words, yet, as adults we stray from it in many ways. Why?
the District of Criminals
oh, i'm so going to steal that one Gdjjr
Notice that I told you unalienable Rights are absolute.
Yes but, after i started reading the PA it dawned on me that the 'absolute' part wasn't all that absolute anymore Porter
~S~
The PA part??? Unalienable Rights are absolute, which is why it is the function of government to insure that those Rights are protected.
mea cuppa Porter
abbreviated for 'Patriot act'
EPIC - USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)
essentially where our Congress turned America's 'Unalienable rights' into whatever they decided was 'alienable'
Point?
Inalienable , in your pristine use of the term (i've no argument w/it) does not exist 'warts and all'
I hope you don't find my take offensive....
~S~
I think it had the potential to be really great- but somewhere near Salinas Lord, we let it slip away looking for that home we hoped to find- freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose, nothing ain't worth nothing but it's free-America was once the greatest nation on earth.
Land of the free- free is encumbered. Liberty and Justice for All- there are no caveats in "all". Rules and regulations encumber, on purpose- someone said in a different post if you don't something (whatever word was used)with the constitution you're a traitor- currently, then, there are 537 elected traitors in the District of Criminals, if the constitution is the bench mark- apparently that happens only when the opposition is in power.
Post your inalienable vs unalienable essay- let's see how confused the readers get.
There are three primary kinds of "rights." Each has unique characteristics Let's start at the top:
"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."
Unalienable Rights are presumed to have come from a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The word unalienable means that the Right cannot be taken away. The EARLIEST court rulings held that these unalienable Rights are inherent, natural, irrevocable, absolute, and above the law.
The next type of "rights" are inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are a by-product of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment. In order to understand these "rights" you have to read the 14th Amendment (and I'll bold the relevant parts so you can see it for yourself):
" 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."
Notice that I told you unalienable Rights are absolute. Those Rights were bestowed upon you by a Creator and are natural, inherent, absolute, irrevocable, and above the law. The 14th Amendment nullifies that and now, via a constitutional amendment, say that the "privileges and immunities" of citizenship cannot be denied without "due process of law." Life, Liberty and Property now become "privileges." Nowhere in the 14th Amendment do you see the word unalienable or even Rights for that matter. Adding insult to injury, the courts, in their reinterpretation of "rights" ruled that you can consent to forfeiting your "rights." That concept is the antithesis of the the word unalienable.
In order to circumvent this outrage, the courts began developing case law revolving around a synonym for unalienable. That word is "inalienable." Essentially, the courts have ruled now that inalienable rights can be aliened by your consent; that government can limit these rights; that your rights are NOT absolute. The net effect is that the courts and the legal community repealed unalienable Rights, replaced them with inalienable rights and had the word unalienable removed from Blacks Law Dictionary - though unalienable is the official word in the Declaration of Independence.
Other "rights" are actually privileges doled out by the government at their discretion... i.e. the "right" to vote. If you'd like me to post the actual court rulings in chronological order to prove what I just said, I can do that too.
A back and forth in a different thread prompted this. There are several things that confuse me. I'm looking for clarity. The following is just the beginning.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of The United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
We're expected, as sponges for brains, to recite that in school, with our little hands over our little hearts, I suppose to add gravity to the words, yet, as adults we stray from it in many ways. Why?
I never liked the pledge of allegiance- even as a kid- it always seemed to phony and Fascist like to demand that we kids repeat that we are good little citizens over and over.
I never needed any pledge of allegiance to be a patriotic American, and I never saw any purpose behind it other than brain washing. Teach kids why the ideals of America are important- don't just make them all repeat something that made old men feel like they were doing something patriotic.
I think it had the potential to be really great- but somewhere near Salinas Lord, we let it slip away looking for that home we hoped to find- freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose, nothing ain't worth nothing but it's free-America was once the greatest nation on earth.
Land of the free- free is encumbered. Liberty and Justice for All- there are no caveats in "all". Rules and regulations encumber, on purpose- someone said in a different post if you don't something (whatever word was used)with the constitution you're a traitor- currently, then, there are 537 elected traitors in the District of Criminals, if the constitution is the bench mark- apparently that happens only when the opposition is in power.
Post your inalienable vs unalienable essay- let's see how confused the readers get.
There are three primary kinds of "rights." Each has unique characteristics Let's start at the top:
"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."
Unalienable Rights are presumed to have come from a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The word unalienable means that the Right cannot be taken away. The EARLIEST court rulings held that these unalienable Rights are inherent, natural, irrevocable, absolute, and above the law.
The next type of "rights" are inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are a by-product of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment. In order to understand these "rights" you have to read the 14th Amendment (and I'll bold the relevant parts so you can see it for yourself):
" 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."
Notice that I told you unalienable Rights are absolute. Those Rights were bestowed upon you by a Creator and are natural, inherent, absolute, irrevocable, and above the law. The 14th Amendment nullifies that and now, via a constitutional amendment, say that the "privileges and immunities" of citizenship cannot be denied without "due process of law." Life, Liberty and Property now become "privileges." Nowhere in the 14th Amendment do you see the word unalienable or even Rights for that matter. Adding insult to injury, the courts, in their reinterpretation of "rights" ruled that you can consent to forfeiting your "rights." That concept is the antithesis of the the word unalienable.
In order to circumvent this outrage, the courts began developing case law revolving around a synonym for unalienable. That word is "inalienable." Essentially, the courts have ruled now that inalienable rights can be aliened by your consent; that government can limit these rights; that your rights are NOT absolute. The net effect is that the courts and the legal community repealed unalienable Rights, replaced them with inalienable rights and had the word unalienable removed from Blacks Law Dictionary - though unalienable is the official word in the Declaration of Independence.
Other "rights" are actually privileges doled out by the government at their discretion... i.e. the "right" to vote. If you'd like me to post the actual court rulings in chronological order to prove what I just said, I can do that too.
Inalienable and unalienable are synonyms.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...04/are-our-rights-inalienable-or-unalienable/
Years ago I was put into a position of having to defend my life against LEOs over the so - called "Patriot Act." It took three years out of my life and I defended myself. I won the case, BTW. So, you might say I have the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree on that one law.
Years ago I was put into a position of having to defend my life against LEOs over the so - called "Patriot Act." It took three years out of my life and I defended myself. I won the case, BTW. So, you might say I have the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree on that one law.
That makes you a rather interesting fellow Porter
And so, you are probably correct , in that i am misdirected, inaccurate....
so i have to ask, where does 'inalienable' hail from? Is it some constitutional fundamentalism? like manna from above? from 'we the people' ? or from whatever authority interprets it, or some individual narrative?
help me out here.....
~S~
“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}
“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
I may be repetitive a couple of times, but it is to put the rulings into their proper context.
Let us define this word unalienable a bit more closely and then talk about it:
Unalienable -Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. (Blacks Law Dictionary online)
So, let us recap:
You have Rights that preceded the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
Those Rights are natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, and God given (regardless of whether you acknowledge a God or not)
Those unalienable Rights are not transferable
Now, let me give you another court ruling:
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted..."
BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
That last ruling is from the United States Supreme Court
So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:
According to Wikipedia:
"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:
"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:
“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.
So, your basic unalienable Rights are the Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These are Rights you gained upon birth and do not owe anyone a duty in order to exercise them. We know, however, that the reality is a bit different, but this Manual will go in depth to explain WHY and WHAT you can do about it. For now, we will focus on these unalienable Rights.
MORE TO COME
What happened? After all we looked at relative to unalienable Rights… unchangeable, absolute, natural, inherent, God given Rights, the United States Supreme Court reverses all those precedents we discussed earlier. How? And did they have the authority?
If any of you want to know the answer to that, we can go on.
I stole it from oddball- LOLoh, i'm so going to steal that one Gdjjr