Members banned from this thread: Humorme
| || |
But if the SC differentiates them, right or wrong, that's the way it is.
The only purpose I see for people to continue to argue the point is if they are committed to weakening the Constitution, or more importantly, their own Rights and Liberties.
Unalienable, inalienable, inherent rights, and laws of nature had the same meaning, were used interchangeably, and used together in the eighteenth century. The selective use of court cases and random dictionary definitions from other eras are irrelevant and cannot change the meaning and intent of these words. There is no credible legal or historical scholarship that delineates the difference. The word "inalienable" was not changed to "unalienable" in the Declaration of Independence because the words had a different meaning and there is no record of a debate regarding the change. It was changed for a preference of style, not substance. There were only two classes of rights: positive and negative.
An opinion regarding the Declaration of Independence and inalienable rights:
The Declaration is regarded by the American people as expressing their views of the fundamental purpose of Government. We believe that every human being is endowed by God with the inalienable right to live.
If you want inalienable Rights, go for it. For me, it's like the official Declaration states UNALIENABLE.
I know I'll probably regret asking this, but if it means the same thing, why all this back and forth? Obviously it DOES mean something to you. You're proving your byline.
You have the right remain silent - if you give up the right to remain silent = inalienable
"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
Last edited by Humorme; 25th February 2017 at 04:52 PM.