Changes

<blockquote>"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of [[citizen|the governed]]." </blockquote>

<blockquote>"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of [[citizen|the governed]]." </blockquote>

According to the [[Founding Fathers|Founders]], unalienable rights belong to each person by [[virtue]] of the fact that man is made in God’s image, and is therefore endowed with certain attributes, powers, [[freedom]]s, and [[legal]] protections as part of his essence. These rights are thus inseparable—or unalienable—from each person individually and from the human race in general. 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, [[abrogate]]d, or diminished by government. When government does take action against a particular right, it may only do so to the extent necessary to address a genuine concern for [[public safety]]. (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.

According to the [[Founding Fathers|Founders]], unalienable rights belong to each person by [[virtue]] of the fact that man is made in God’s image, and is therefore endowed with certain attributes, powers, [[freedom]]s, and [[legal]] protections as part of his essence.{{fact}} These rights are thus inseparable—or unalienable—from each person individually and from the human race in general. 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, [[abrogate]]d, or diminished by government. When government does take action against a particular right, it may only do so to the extent necessary to address a genuine concern for [[public safety]]. (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.{{fact}}

An exhaustive list of the unalienable rights possessed by man would probably fill several volumes. However, at a minimum they include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In general, the courts have not decided which rights are unalienable and which are not.  Nonetheless, some philosophers have identified the following items, derived from the American Bill of Rights, as expanding on these themes:

An exhaustive list of the unalienable rights possessed by man would probably fill several volumes. However, at a minimum they include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In general, the courts have not decided which rights are unalienable and which are not.  Nonetheless, some philosophers{{fact}} have identified the following items, derived from the American Bill of Rights, as expanding on these themes:

# To act in self-defense (personal, family, innocents, nation).

# To act in self-defense (personal, family, innocents, nation).

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.  

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.  

===Lawsuitst To protect the rights of others===

===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. 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.

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. 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.

* The [[War on Terror]] - Military Tribunals / Denial of [[Habeas corpus]] / [[Rendition]] / [[Patriot Act]] / [[FISA]] Violations

* The [[War on Terror]] - Military Tribunals / Denial of [[Habeas corpus]] / [[Rendition]] / [[Patriot Act]] / [[FISA]] Violations

* The [[War on Drugs]] - [[Asset forfeiture|Asset Forfeiture]] Laws (permit the government to deprive someone of their [[property]] without [[due process]].)

* The [[War on Drugs]] - [[Asset forfeiture|Asset Forfeiture]] Laws (permit the government to deprive someone of their [[property]] without [[due process]].)

* U.S. [[Supreme Court]] decision ''[[Kelo v. City of New London]]'' - 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. See [[income redistribution]].

* U.S. [[Supreme Court]] decision ''[[Kelo v. City of New London]]'' - 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 (rather than take it for a public purpose).  

* Suspension of Habeas corpus during the war on terrorism.

* Suspension of Habeas corpus during the war on terrorism.