Unalienable rights

Unalienable rights are permanent rights belonging to citizens which can never be taken away by legitimate government action. Thomas Jefferson made the concept famous in the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and it forms a bedrock of American political values or Republicanism. In recent years other vcountries, such as Canada, have declared similar constitutional rights.

All men are endowed with certain attributes, powers, freedoms, and legal protections. These rights are thus inseparable -- or unalienable -- from each person individually and from the human race as a whole. They are a gift from the Creator and it is impossible for government to alter or nullify mankind’s divine inheritance. Except in extremely rare and limited circumstances, the unalienable rights of a particular individual, or the population at large, cannot be suspended, abrogated, or diminished by government -- and then only to the extent necessary to address the instant emergency. (See "Legitimate Exceptions" below.) Unalienable rights automatically belong to each individual at the moment his or her life begins and continue throughout that person’s time on earth. Unalienable rights are often referred to as God-given.

There can never be an exhaustive list of the unalienable rights, for rights are continuously discovered and appreciated. James Madison, in compiling the amendments that became the Bill of Rights in 1791, worked through hundreds of variations that were current in the literature of the American Revolution.

At a minimum they include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The following items, derived from the American Bill of Rights, expand on these themes:

1. To act in self-defense (personal, family, innocents, nation).
2. To own and carry weapons for self-defense and for ensuring that the nation remains free.
3. To own and control private property (land, money, personal items, intellectual property, etc.)
4. To earn a living and keep the fruit of one’s labor.
5. To worship -- or not worship -- God in the manner one chooses.
6. To associate with -- or disassociate from -- any person or group.
7. To express any idea through print, voice, banner, or other media.
8. To be secure in one’s home, papers, and person against unwarranted searches and seizures. This is the Right of Privacy.
9. To be advised of the charges, in the event of arrest.
10. To have a judge determine if the accused should be held for trial or for punishment.
11. To be tried by a jury of one’s peers and face one’s accuser, in the event of being charged with a crime.
12. To be tried by a jury of one’s peers, in the event of a suit in which the disputed amount is substantive.
13. To suffer no cruel or unusual punishment, if found guilty of a crime.
14. To establish, monitor, control, and petition a “servant government” to help secure the above rights.
15. To abolish said government, when it becomes destructive of these rights.

Early History in America

The concept of unalienable rights in America extends as far back as 1620, when the first Pilgrims arrived on the shores of what is now Massachusetts, in search of religious freedom. According to Governor William Bradford, it was the unending attack on the rights of religious minorities in Britain which convinced the Pilgrims that leaving England was the only way to secure their liberties:

“The one side laboured to have the right worship of God and discipline of Christ established in the church… The other partie…endevored to have the episcopall dignitie (after the popish manner) with their large power and jurisdiction still retained; with all those courts, cannons, and ceremonies, together with all such livings, revenues, and subordinate officers, with other such means as formerly upheld their antichristian greatnes, and enabled them with lordly and tyranous power to persecute the poore servants of God.” (History of Plymouth Plantation)

Other pilgrims soon followed those carried by the Mayflower.

As these early Christian communities continued to grow and flourish in the new world, the notion that each individual possesses inherent dignity, value, and freedoms which the government ought to protect, became a recurring theme in political discussions and in religious writings and sermons.

The literature of Republicanism, based on British and European political theory, provided a solid basis for government based on the soverignty of the people and their rights.

To the Declaration of Independence

The great British lawter William Blackstone explained, "For the principle aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature....The public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual's private rights....The principle view of human law is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute.”

Samuel Adams had declared

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”

George Mason drafted a statement approved by the Virginia legislature that Jefferson used.

“All men are born equally free," and possess "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.”
-

Jefferson's Declaration said:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 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.”
-- The Declaration of Independence (1776)

Other quotes

Jefferson believed “Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man.”

• “The right of the individual against the State has ever been one of our most cherished political principles. The American Constitution has set down for all men to see the essentially Christian and American principle that there are certain rights held by every man which no government and no majority, however powerful, can deny. Conceived in Grecian thought, strengthened by Christian morality, and stamped indelibly into American political philosophy, the right of the individual against the State is the keystone of our Constitution. Each man is free.”
  -- President John F. Kennedy

• “All men are made in the image of God; all men are brothers; all men are created equal; every man is heir to a legacy of dignity and worth; every man has rights that are neither conferred by nor derived from the state, they are God-given.”
  -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

• “Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. People, worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination, [and] for those inalienable rights that make for human dignity and progress.”
  -- President Ronald Reagan

• “One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
  -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

• “As drafters of our Bill of Rights, the Framers inscribed the principles that control today. Any deviation from their intentions frustrates the permanence of that Charter…”
  -- Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court William Rehnquist

Legitimate Exceptions

Despite the sacred nature of unalienable rights, there are circumstances when one or more of them can be legitimately abridged or violated. Under the Constitution of the United States and American legal tradition, there are at least six times when the unalienable rights of a person, or the nation at large, may be legitimately infringed or suspended:

Due Process

Certain rights may be temporarily or permanently suspended through a court trial, or due process. If someone has committed a theft, for example, he may be found guilty by a jury of his peers, incarcerated, and thus lose a great deal of his personal freedom for a certain period of time. He may also be forced to turn over some of his property to settle the related fine or to pay restitution. In the most extreme criminal cases, such as capital murder, the accused may forfeit his right to life.

Injunctions

A court may also issue an injunction to temporarily suspend a person’s right to conduct certain activities. Technically speaking, an injunction does not constitute due process, since no jury is involved. However, an injunction is generally regarded as an acceptable infringement on personal rights, inasmuch as it is a temporary measure and seeks only to block activities which may be harmful to others, or which may be found illegal at a subsequent trial. Nevertheless, injunctions cannot compel any person to do what is otherwise illegal or unconstitutional, such as forcing a witness to testify against himself or forcing a witness to change testimony which the witness believes to be true.

Lawsuits To Protect the Rights of Others

Although not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is clear that the exercise of one person’s unalienable rights may not interfere with the exercise of another’s. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is alleged to have said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” In other words, a person is free to exercise his or her unalienable rights without restraint, so long as he harms no other person, nor prevents anyone from exercising their own rights. When conflict does arise, the offended party may sue in a court of law in order to have their rights restored, or to be made financially whole, by legal process.

Eminent Domain

Whenever there is a compelling need to appropriate privately owned real estate for use by the general public, the government may exercise the power of eminent domain to take the land. There are two provisos to this usurpation. First, the land must be used for a public project, such as a highway, a utility line, a canal, a federal fort or building, etc. It cannot be taken for private use, even if the recipient intends to benefit the public thereby, such as by putting a shopping mall or a new row of houses on the property. (The Supreme Court in 2005 seriously erred on this issue in the 5-4 Kelo decision.) Second, the owner must be fairly compensated for the cost of the land. The fair market value is the highest price the owner would get for the property, were he to make it publicly available. In the event that the owner and the government cannot agree on a price, an appraiser may be asked to help assess the value. If there is still no agreement, the case may be put before a court and both sides may produce expert witnesses to attest the property’s worth.

Invasion and Rebellion

In the event of an invasion of the United States, or a rebellion against the government, the right of habeas corpus may be temporarily withheld. Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution provides: “The privilege [right] of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial order that commands a prison official or jailer to bring a detainee before a judge to determine if said person is being lawfully held and, if not, to command his release. Anyone who objects to someone’s detention may petition for the writ. This right is therefore one of the surest guarantees of liberty, because it prevents the government from arbitrarily imprisoning those it sees as a threat to its power. The right may only be suspended when the nation faces imminent or actual invasion, or when a violent rebellion has been launched against federal personnel or property, and then only to the extent the “public safety” requires it.

Direct Taxation

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. It is divided into two broad classes which may not be violated: Direct with apportionment; and Indirect with uniformity. Congress has two choices. It may either tax things which do not involve the exercise of unalienable rights (thus making such a tax completely voluntary or Indirect.) Or, Congress may tax an unalienable right through apportionment among the states (thus making the tax mandatory or Direct, but politically unpopular.) No other kinds of taxes are permitted. All must fall within one of these two categories.

Under Direct taxation, Congress may tax the right to own property, earn a living in the private sector, enjoy health care, attend synagogue, publish a newspaper, or any other fundamental right. But all such taxes must be apportioned among the states. On the other hand, under Indirect taxation Congress may impose a duty on certain imports, or it may levy excises on privileged activities and commodities, such as tobacco, alcohol, government licenses, and certain federally-connected occupations and investments. But the tax in these cases must be uniform throughout the United States. If a tax falls outside these parameters, it is unconstitutional and must be struck down.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE that in the vast majority of situations where God-given rights are legally infringed or suspended, it is not all rights which are affected, but only a few particular rights, and only for a particular purpose and brief duration. (The obvious exception is when a person has been found guilty of a capital crime and is sentenced to death.) Aside from these special circumstances, the government cannot restrict, suspend, cancel, or even tax the exercise of any unalienable right. The People of America are sovereign, and they have informed their servant government that it cannot arbitrarily interfere with their inheritance from God.

Threats & Safeguards

A number of safeguards are built into the American system of government to protect our unalienable rights. These include:

• The Bill of Rights
• Jury trials
• Jury nullification
• Habeas Corpus
• Popular vote of congressmen and senators
• Recall of elected officials
• Impeachment and removal of the President
• The right to petition for redress of grievances
• The right to demonstrate against the government
• The right to publish critiques of the government
• The right to petition a grand jury to indict officials
• Constitutional checks and balances between the various branches of government
• Limitation on Enumerated Powers to 19 (plus the power to remove the President)
• Courts of appeal and the Supreme Court
• The right to abolish the government and start over

Recent threats to our unalienable rights come mainly from the federal government. Of late, they include:

• Hate Crime laws - Infringe on the right to think in a politically incorrect manner; they also give special rights and status to privileged groups.
• McCain-Feingold law - Infringes on freedom of expression immediately before an election.
• Fairness Doctrine - Infringes on the right of a person (or group) to express only what they believe.
• Executive Orders - Hundreds of directives issued by the President carrying the force of law, but not legislated by Congress.
• The War on Terror - Military Tribunals / Denial of Habeas Corpus / Rendition / PATRIOT ACT / FISA Violations
• The War on Drugs - Asset Forfeiture Laws (permit the government to deprive someone of their property without due process.)
• U.S. Supreme Court Kelo decision - Distortion of the power of eminent domain, allowing the government to take land which belongs to one private person or group, and give it to another.

“Human Rights” vs. Unalienable Rights

In the current vernacular, the term “human rights” is often used interchangeably with the term “unalienable rights.” The difference between these two concepts, however, is immense and cannot be reconciled. Unalienable rights are those authored by God. They are thus both irrevocable and nearly unlimited in scope. Man’s role is simply to discover and protect them. On the other hand, human rights are created and sustained by human government. They are thus narrowly drawn and perpetually open to modification, suspension, or rescission at any time. No emergency is required to alter or nullify them. Governments generally promote and exploit “human rights” to advance the power of government.

The most well-known example of human rights is the United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document contains thirty articles listing about fifty rights authored and approved by the UN. At the time the UN Declaration was ratified by its members, it was hailed by the media as a major advancement in the cause of liberty. It is important to remember, however, that the UN recognizes only those rights contained in the Declaration and no others. If a right is not listed in the Declaration, such as the right to keep and bear arms, then as far as the UN is concerned that right does not exist. Moreover and more significantly, any right that does appear in the Declaration is subject to modification or cancellation at the discretion of UN policymakers:

Article 29

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Not surprisingly, the majority of governments that promote “human rights” are socialist- or communist-based, and are usually ruled by a dictator, an oligarchy, or a military junta. In these regimes, the concept of “human rights” gives the government wide latitude to control the population by granting certain freedoms and withholding others. Unlike the government instituted by America’s forefathers, governments which promote “human rights” typically are not established to protect the freedoms of the People, but to control and exploit the population, under the guise of providing them with “security.”

“Inalienable” vs. “Unalienable”

Often, the word “inalienable” is used in place of “unalienable,” when describing God-given rights. This seems to be an acceptable practice, going back several centuries. The context usually indicates that the same rights are being discussed. For linguistic purists, however, inalienable means not able to be transferred or forfeit without the permission of the individual possessing said rights. Unalienable means not able to be transferred or surrendered under any circumstance.

Under this formulation, inalienable rights may be surrendered in whole or in part, and either permanently or for a limited period of time, by the person endowed with such rights. Unalienable rights, on the other hand, are those contemplated by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They cannot be forfeit under any circumstance, inasmuch as no human has the authority to override what God has already established. Unalienable rights belong to each of us, and to all of us, for as long as we live. For better or worse, we’re stuck with them.