Members banned from this thread: Humorme


Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 134
Thanks Tree54Thanks

Thread: Constitutional originalism

  1. #41
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,451
    Thanks
    254

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    Unalienable and unalienable have the same meaning. "In" is a negative prefix derived from Latin and French, and "un" is a negative prefix derived from Anglican/English, thus the rights in the Bill of Rights are negative rights.

    Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence:

    We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from....

    Inalienable was changed to unalienable by a copyist. Rights are either negative (unalienable or inalienable) or positive (alienable)
    You're still wrong. Facts are facts. In law the two words mean different things AND the official Declaration of Independence uses the word unalienable.



    Unalienable Rights vs Inalienable Rights

    https://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/...s-inalienable/

  2. #42
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    2,675
    Thanks
    2386

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    You're still wrong. Facts are facts. In law the two words mean different things AND the official Declaration of Independence uses the word unalienable.



    Unalienable Rights vs Inalienable Rights

    https://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/...s-inalienable/
    Of interest, the Washington Post has an article which disagrees with that and claims they are interchangeable.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d2aeb4588655

    But if the SC differentiates them, right or wrong, that's the way it is.

  3. #43
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,451
    Thanks
    254

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    Of interest, the Washington Post has an article which disagrees with that and claims they are interchangeable.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d2aeb4588655

    But if the SC differentiates them, right or wrong, that's the way it is.
    Your link, as well as the words of all my critics is based upon a grammarist's interpretation and the definitions that existed at the time of the founding fathers. I'm not making a living Constitution argument here. I'm simply stating that the courts have defined the two words differently.

    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.

  4. #44
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    891
    Thanks
    183

    From
    U.S.
    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.
    Thanks from AttusBlack

  5. #45
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,451
    Thanks
    254

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    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.
    Don't blame me if you're illiterate. That is the only other possibility. Dude, IN LAW, the words have been interpreted differently. Get the Hell over it. Don't let this destroy your life. Access the links, do a little reading and move on.

  6. #46
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    891
    Thanks
    183

    From
    U.S.
    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.

  7. #47
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,451
    Thanks
    254

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    An opinion regarding the Declaration of Independence and inalienable rights:
    Opinions are like a**holes. Everybody has one. If you want to screw yourself out of your Rights via ignorance, by all means do not let the rest of America stop you. I've presented enough of the law so that what you've put on this board is irrelevant.

    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.

  8. #48
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    891
    Thanks
    183

    From
    U.S.
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    Opinions are like a**holes. Everybody has one. If you want to screw yourself out of your Rights via ignorance, by all means do not let the rest of America stop you. I've presented enough of the law so that what you've put on this board is irrelevant.

    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
    Are you saying the opinion I just posted regarding the Declaration of Independence and inalienable rights is not that relevant?

  9. #49
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    41,423
    Thanks
    19280

    From
    Depends on what year....
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    It would be unalienable Right. In law, an unalienable Right is above the jurisdiction of government. Inalienable rights, on the other hand, may be given up.
    Legal source of distinction?

  10. #50
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    26,371
    Thanks
    6959

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    I have heard it argued that the intent of the FFs was to make sure they had the makings of a militia if needed as they feared a standing army, thus the prevention of the populous being unable to have weapons.

    Since the world has morphed and there is a standing army, a militia isn't needed thus the intent is no longer valid.

    As opposed to my righty acquaintance who says the intent of the first amendment was only to protect white protestants and the protestant christian religion. And he will quote tons of letters from FFs and such to justify his claim that that was the intent so that's how it should be. Just as one example.
    They did not fear a standing army, They feared the lack of ability of self defense from a Standing army, if a government became overly oppressive.

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. It's A Constitutional Obligation
    By Howey in forum Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 17th February 2016, 02:29 PM
  2. Constitutional right...
    By The Man in forum Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 18th August 2012, 09:29 AM
  3. War in Iraq Constitutional?
    By Conservative15 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 12th October 2008, 04:07 PM
  4. Constitutional?
    By Conservative15 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 27th September 2008, 06:58 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed