SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,592
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 129:
Line 129: + + − +
new section to explain "unalienable rights" vs "rights" in general
Any activity or right that is taxed is necessarily infringed. In ''McCulloch vs. Maryland'', U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall observed that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." The fiscal encumbrance of any unalienable right, therefore, is a violation of that right and may lead to its destruction. For that reason, the taxing power of Congress is strictly limited. For example, churches have special, limited tax exemptions.
Any activity or right that is taxed is necessarily infringed. In ''McCulloch vs. Maryland'', U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall observed that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." The fiscal encumbrance of any unalienable right, therefore, is a violation of that right and may lead to its destruction. For that reason, the taxing power of Congress is strictly limited. For example, churches have special, limited tax exemptions.
==Nature, scope and limits==
The concept of "unalienable rights" draws controversy over how they are identified and enforced. In the eighteenth century, the definition that unalienable rights were defined by God, meant that the rights were not subject to the whim of the King to grant or withdraw. Social structures have evolved since then, so the debate has shifted to whether a particular right originates with God or is recognized by a particular society. If unalienable rights come from God, then people will differ on those rights in societies with many religions. For example, the early [[Mormon]] Church accepted polygamy, where a man could marry more than one woman at a time. American society did not accept that as an unalienable right, and armed conflict resulted. Similarly, the Roman Catholic Church did not recognize the rights of people to divorce, while the views of American society as a whole viewed people as holding those rights. People can debate whether someone's views on these subjects are inspired by God, but probably both sides could argue whether divorce or polygamy were included in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So, in a democracy, individuals' understanding of their unalienable rights get resolved in the context of maintaining social order through the rule of law. While unalienable rights should in theory be protected from the opinions of the majority, as a practical matter, if there is a consensus in society, legislation and litigation will result in the scope and limits of a right being set in a manner that does not reflect the opinions of a minority. Because consensus evolves over time, the latitude that people have to enjoy what they believe are unalienable rights can shift as well. In a society with freedom of religion, the practical definition of the nature, scope and limits of rights is not decided by theologians.
== Threats & Safeguards ==
== Threats & Safeguards ==
A number of safeguards are built into the American system of government to protect our unalienable rights. These include:
A number of safeguards are built into the American system of government to protect our rights whether or not someone would classify them as "unalienable". These include:
* The Bill of Rights
* The Bill of Rights