inalienable or unalienable

7/30/2019 Inalienable or Unalienable

1/5

INALIENABLEor

UNALIENABLE

We hear a lot, lately, of the inalienable rights of citizens in the United States. However, there is a

difference between inalienable and unalienable rights. Although the definitions which appear

below seem to belie the point, there is a most decided difference between the two.

Before we begin our discussion, let's define our terms.

Inalienable -

Adj. not alienable; not transferrable to another or capable of of being reputable: inalienable

rights. (dictionary.com);

Inalienable is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least without one'sconsent.[Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (Mo. Ct. App. 1952) (definitions.uslegal.com);

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred (merriam-

webster.com);

Not transferable; impossible to take away. (Nolo's Plain English Law Dictionary).

Unalienable -

incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.

Inalienable rights are rights which may be sold, transferred, or otherwise abrogated with the

consent of the ownerof those rights. So, is it possible that a man may sell his life to another for asum? Not legally, therefore, life is unalienable. To argue otherwise is to argue the right of

murder. May a man sell his liberty? If you believe that voluntary slavery is acceptable then you

might also claim that this is acceptable. You would be wrong. Jefferson included the concept of

liberty as an unalienable right for a reason it is objectionable to God for any man to voluntarilysell himself into slavery. Is happiness a God given right? Not at all. It is the pursuitof happiness

which is God-given. It is the right of all men to pursue that which makes them happy. Art,

athletics, farming whatever makes a man happy it is his rightto pursue that.

However, one's right in a piece of art, one's land which he farms, one's automobile, the pay one

receives for his labor all of these are property and the right of ownership is inalienable. I.e.,one's right of possession in these items is not subject to be taken, transferred or otherwise

surrendered, but the property itselfmay be sold or surrendered but only with the consent of the

owner. This specifically means that there is no right of government to eminent domain or forced

seizure if that government refuses to abide by the owner's determination of just compensation. It


2/5

is the owner who determines what just compensation is to be derived from any property

transaction with government not the government. Otherwise, there would be no right to

property.

Unalienable rights are a reference to NaturalorAbsolute law. In declaring the rights of men,

Thomas Jefferson wrote his famous line in the Declaration of Independence We hold thesetruths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Jefferson was referring to those rights bestowed on all men, everywhere, of life, liberty, and thepursuit of happiness. These are unalienable rights, not bestowed on men by men. Not rights

granted of government to the governed. These are rights given of God, Himself, to all men. They

are a gift from God which is precisely why they are unalienable rights.

At what point, however, does an American citizen lose his rights, if at all? Consider - a man

commits murder which results in his arrest, trial, and conviction with a sentence of death. Wait a

minute! Life is an unalienable right, you might argue. True enough. Where, then, did the

authority to execute a man for a crime originate? From God. Godgranted life, and it is withinHis power to take that life not Man's. Under God's law, any man who murders (not kills

there's a difference) forfeits his life for that act. It is not the government which has decided toexecute the murderer, Godhas decided to execute the murderer. This is where capitol punishment

derives from, the acceptance and desire to conform to God's law. It is not men doing the taking of

life, it is God doing the taking using men to carry out His law. Likewise, any conviction whichresults in the loss of liberty or the forfeiture of property obtained through illegal means (theft,

robbery, fraud, etc.).

This is the point of the argument that states progressives (read that liberals or Republicrats)deny God and His law. They deny Natural law. By denying God's law, they claim the right to

make law in His stead. Laws which are more pleasing to them. Laws which consolidate their

power. Laws which restrain and enslave the citizens. The sad fact is, though, those laws are farmore binding than any of God's laws. If one needs proof of that statement, one needs only to read

a few law books (pick one from local, state, and federal codes). Look at the extent to which men

have gone to control the lives of others. They have gone so far as to claim themselves to be Godand to deny His rights to others. They are, however, the first to scream about the loss of their

rights. It is this failure to identify the source of rights that causes such confusion and

misunderstanding in regard to what constitutes unalienable and inalienable rights as opposed to

government authority and power.

Herein, then, lies the question - are American citizens who have been convicted of a felony still

American citizens? How many convicted felons are there who cannot vote. How many convictedfelons cannot own a firearm? How many convicted felons cannot hold public office? Unless they

have applied for restoration of their rights they can do none of these things and, if they make

the attempt, subject themselves to further punishment. But, wherein, in the Constitution is thereany claim that those convicted of felonies lose their unalienable orinalienable rights. Have you

ever heard of a convicted robber agreeing to be barred from the right of due process? How about

the right to security in one's own home, once released from prison? How absurd to argue such a

point. The argument that commission of the crime carries with it the undeclared waiver of such


3/5

rights is specious, deceitful, misleading, and an outright lie. Does that not identify the true source

of such arguments and the loyalty of those who are working to destroy what God has given?

Historically, once a felon was released from prison the state was required to restore to him his

horse (ora horse, as the case may be, since his may have been eaten or simply died by the time

he released), saddle, firearms, ammunition, and clothing. In some cases, they were even requiredto provide him a stake, usually some amount of a gold piece, to get started in rebuilding his

life. Argue, if you wish, but as late as the late 80's, the State of Florida, as just one example, had

just this type of law on its books. And they were forced to comply with it, too. The point is thatthe concept of stripping a convicted felon of his rights based on a the political motivations of

some insignificant politician seeking to make himself relevant and re-electable is a fairly recent

innovation in law.

For the past several months there has been much noise over the right of American citizens to

keep and bear arms. There has been much controversy over whether the President has the

authority to prevent any American citizen from purchasing firearms and ammunition without any

restrictions imposed on that right by government. The 2

nd

Amendment to the Constitution of theUnited States reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free

State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be

infringed.

A parsing of the amendment will provide a better understanding of its intent.

A well regulated Militia, - the Militia was and is composed of individual citizens. It isimmaterial whether any firearms and their accoutrements were provided by the State or

by the individual. Here, the point is made that a Militia, not just any Militia, but a well

regulated Militia is referenced. It is a matter of organization. It is a matter of discipline.It is a matter of efficiency, effectiveness, and practicality.

Militias arestate organizations, not federal. Nowhere in the Constitution was the federalgovernment authorized, delegated, or otherwise ceded the authority to regulate the

formation or control of any state's militia, much less their right to arms.

being necessary why necessary? What is necessary about a well regulated Militia?It was thoroughly argued prior to the ratification of the Bill of Rights that the purpose of

militias, manned by individual citizens, was to respond to tyranny by government. It is

the responsibility of individual citizens, it is their duty (see the Declaration ofIndependence), to put down tyranny by government.

to the security herein, is partly defined the purpose of a well regulatedMilitia. That purpose is to secure. To prevent harm. To ensure the safety of those

the Militia is charged with securing.


4/5


5/5

infringed. - interfered with, infringed, broken, contravened, encroached, intruded upon,

invaded, meddled with, or transgressed. No infringement is acceptable. None. Noinfringement is tolerated. None. It does not matter from which office the infringement

originates. Neither Executive, Legislative, nor Judicial may infringe. There is no

tolerance for incremental or other divergence from the imperative.

No law local, state, or federal which prevents, limits, or otherwise infringes with the right of

ownership of a firearm and its attendant accessories (including ammunition) is constitutional.Therefore, no such law is legitimately enforceable and allcitizens (convicted felons or not)

have the right to resist any effort at enforcement with use of force, up to and including deadly

force, if need be.

Many laws seek to incrementally erode the rights of citizens. Many irrelevant politicians seek to

boost their potential through the concept of increased safety at the hands of government and raise

the hue and cry over more and more laws they claim will protect their constituents. They

conveniently fail to inform the people that the law enforcement function of government has noduty to protect any citizen (CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005) 366

F.3d 1093, reversed.).

It is the right of every citizen, regardless of their background, to be able to protect themselves,

their families, and their property at all times. The right of protection does not stop at one'sproperty line. It does not end with a felony conviction. There is no limit to that right.

Some will complain that to permit all citizens to arm themselves without the oversight of

government is to invite those of uncontrolled temperament to act out their aggressions with theaid of weapons. It is a simple matter. It has been demonstrably proven, time and again, that

where the right to carry is not infringed, violent crime if not crime in general tends to fall.

Additionally, it is incumbent upon citizens to be held accountable for their actions. This is, again,something that the liberals are chipping away at personal responsibility. According to them,

society is responsible for all individual actions, therefore, society must pay for any transgressions

of the individual, especially where firearms are involved. This is nothing more than a chimeraintended to confuse in order to further reduce citizens to absolute control of government. But if

all citizens who choose to exercise their right to keep and bear arms and are held personally

accountable for their actions in using those arms the abuse of the right will become less and less

of an occurrence.

Do not make the mistake of accepting alleged laws against unalienable and inalienable rights

as being legitimate simply because some wide striped politician claims it to be so. It isimmaterial how such a false law was passed. It is immaterial if some politician, police chief,

sheriff, street cop, or black robed priest either collectively or individually - push their dreams

of Nazi control and deems it his prerogative to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. Manup. Stand up. Be accountable. Fight back.

The Swamp Fox22Jan13

inalienable or unalienable

Documents