Unalienable
By
We have seen the word unalienable many times on this blog. (See occurrences here ) It exists in the second paragraph of the United States Declaration of Independence.
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 — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
But what does it mean? The concept of Man’s rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief of their Divine origin. Without this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. Man has no power to alienate–to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift any of his God-given rights. This is the meaning of “unalienable.”
This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. Only our country, â??The United Statesâ? in all of the world’s history, has true unalienable rights. We were founded on the assumption that the individual has rights that exist apart from the government and not at its pleasure. In many other countries, like England and Canada, they also have their own Bill of Rights, but those rights are at the pleasure of the government. It is stated in their laws. In those countries both the people and the governments consider their rights to be gifts from the government and subject to government approval. So they are not â??unalienableâ? rights at all. In 1868, the U.S. Constitution was amended to say that even the states cannot violate our unalienable rights. These things form the basis of our freedom and are the reasons why the United States is the freest country on earth.
Many people, even those here mistakenly use the term â??constitutional rights.â? Our rights are not constitutional rights. Our Founding Fathers never intended them to be. They set this country up with the understanding that our rights are God-given or natural. They are not gifts from the government; they are not granted by the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution say we are being granted rights. When rights are mentioned, it says only that the government cannot deprive us of them. And nowhere does it say our rights are peculiarly American rights. In fact, it specifically says…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights… That, my friends is the philosophical and legal basis of this country.
Why, then, do we even have a Bill of Rights in our Constitution? The Federalists, Hamilton, John Adams, etc., didn’t want one because they feared not only would any rights not included be denied, but that the government would then begin acting as if the government itself, and the Constitution in particular, would be viewed as the source of our rights. On the flip side, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and others wanted a Bill of Rights because they feared that without it the government would eventually assume our rights didn’t exist. Part of the compromise to make sure â??un-enumerated rightsâ? were not ignored was the Ninth Amendment. It specifically says, â??The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.â?
Today you will quite often find methods used by the U.S. Congress to cheapen the unalienable Bill of Rights by calling proposed legislation such things as: the patients" bill of rights, the property owners" bill of rights, the â??what you want nowâ? bill of rights, etc. By marketing these legislative schemes with the words â??bill of rightsâ? attached to the name leads citizens who are no longer properly schooled in the founding of our country, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to believe rights are granted by government edict and that no rights are truly unalienable.
Read the other posts where unalienable rights are discussed:
Why isn’t the Declaration of Independence studied in schools?
Thou Shall Notâ??.
Spirit’s Corner
Principles of Liberty
Spirit’s Corner
No related posts.
Notice that each one of the Divinely-granted and inspired “rights” don’t end with any of these words:
“If you’re in the mood”, or “unless I don’t agree”, or “with the exception of”, or “but…”
Although at the time he was not the booming orator of his earlier years in the House of Burgesses, Patrick Henry most likely was the key to getting the bill of rights included. Without it, the constitution would not have been ratified. It is clear that what was of utmost concern to Henry, and the other anti-Federalists, was limiting the power of the Federal Government – to them this was crucial (how right they were in hindsight!).
Henry (an anti-Federalist) was a gifted orator and a naturally intelligent individual. Henry argued clearly that the fundamental idea presented by the Declaration of Independence would have been altogether lost with a Constitution sans a bill of rights:
Henry went on to summarize as follows:
Henry was consistent with his overriding concern for limiting the power of the FEderal Government – For example, the following were his words in argument for, essentially, a right to bear arms:
If one reads the Federalist Papers, one ought to also read the Anti-Federalist Papers which were written contemporaneously and as a point – counter point to the propositions raised in the Federalist Papers.
Yes true, but an average American needs to see that the Constitution says there are these unalienable rights, so Constitutional rights are a step in the right direction to educate the public by saying that the constitution declares that these unalienable rights exist.