The Declaration of Independence lists some of our inalienable rights. It also says “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”. If governments are created to secure our rights, does that mean they have the legitimate power to regulate them? In many situations, governments at all levels claim that power. So what happens when We the People allow governments to control our rights? Or, more importantly, what can we do to regain control of our rights?
During the ratification debates, one of the reasons the Federalists were opposed to a Bill of Rights was the fear that if we put a list of rights in the Constitution, someone would think they had the right to regulate them. History has shown there was merit to the Federalists’ concern.
United States Capitol
Enter Title 40, United States Code §5104
(e) Capitol Grounds and Buildings Security.-
(1) Firearms, dangerous weapons, explosives, or incendiary devices.-An individual or group of individuals-
(A) except as authorized by regulations prescribed by the Capitol Police Board-
(i) may not carry on or have readily accessible to any individual on the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings a firearm, a dangerous weapon, explosives, or an incendiary device;
(ii) may not discharge a firearm or explosives, use a dangerous weapon, or ignite an incendiary device, on the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings; or
(iii) may not transport on the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings explosives or an incendiary device;
40 U.S.C. §5104
This law places sole discretion over who is allowed to bear arms on the Capitol Grounds in the hands of the Capitol Police Board. This is in direct violation of the Second Amendment:
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.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment II
However, there’s an interesting twist to this law: Members of Congress are not subject to it.
[The Senators and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 6, Clause 1
While it may be against the law (unconstitutional and void as that law may be), members of Congress are exempt from arrest, since this is not a felony. No one seemed to care very much, or at least not until Lauren Boebert won her seat in Congress. Rep. Boebert stated that she would carry her firearm on capitol grounds. While that is a violation of 40 U.S.C. 5104(e), as a member of the House of Representatives, she is privileged from arrest while in attendance at the capitol. Which quickly led to the introduction of H.R. 545, the “No Congressional Gun Loophole Act”.
“(B) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Capitol Police Board may not authorize or permit a Member of Congress or an employee of such Member of Congress to carry on or have readily accessible to such Member or employee a firearm, except a Member or employee may store a firearm in a car owned by such Member or employee that is parked in a garage in the Capitol complex if the Member or employee is in compliance with the firearms laws of the District of Columbia for the lawful possession of such firearm and such firearm is locked with a gun lock while on the Capitol complex.”.
H.R. 545 – The No Congressional Gun Loophole Act
There are a couple of things I noticed in this legislation. First, all it really does is tell the Capitol Police Board that they may not authorize a member of Congress or employee to carry a firearm at the Capitol. To my knowledge, the Capitol Police have not authorized Rep Boebert to carry her firearm, so nothing has changed there. Which leads to the second point. When it comes to Congressmen, it means absolutely nothing, since it would be a violation of the Constitution for the Capitol Police to arrest a Senator or Representative while attending or traveling to or from a session of their respective house. What are the Capitol Police going to do? And just imagine Rep. Boebert or another member of Congress filing a complaint with the Capitol Police, or with the F.B.I. for that matter, of a violation of 18 U.S.C. §242 for denying them a right protected under the Constitution? Unfortunately, I bet this legislation makes someone feel better.
State of Illinois
There are a few states that still require someone possess a Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card to own or possess a firearm. In other words, these states claim that their citizens must get their permission before exercising their right to keep and bear arms. This is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment, but the courts have routinely upheld the criminal idea that states can infringe your rights if they have a good enough reason. Then, to add insult to injury, the State of Illinois makes things worse.
There’s also a management audit of [Illinois State Police]’s handling of the Firearm Owner Identification Card and Concealed Carry License programs.
Auditors say of their sample, 87% of FOID cards weren’t processed in time with up to a year delay and 60% of renewals weren’t processed in time with up to 214 days delay…
Of the applications auditors sampled, 43% of CCL applications weren’t processed within the constraints of the law.
Audit commission to review delays in FOID cards, concealed carry licenses, other findings with state police – The Center Square
If it wasn’t bad enough that residents of Illinois need state approval to own a gun, the state cannot even follow their own laws regarding the issuing of that permission. And if a right delayed is a right denied, this is even more evidence of the State if Illinois denying the rights of their citizens.
State of California
Not to be outdone, California Governor Newsom, in what appears to be a fit if pique, decided to abuse the rights of his citizens because he doesn’t like how the Supreme Court is handling a case from another state.
“I am outraged by yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Texas’s ban on most abortion services to remain in place, and largely endorsing Texas’s scheme to insulate its law from the fundamental protections of Roe v. Wade. But if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way.
Governor Newsom Statement on Supreme Court Decision
Look at the reasoning Governor Newsom is using. He doesn’t like the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has not issued an injunction against a Texas law currently being reviewed by the federal judiciary. Forget the fact that the court noted that the request for an injunction was not legitimate, since it attempted to enjoin someone who could not use the Texas law. Ignoring the fact that the potential harm of issuing an injunction would be quite permanent (the baby is dead), while the harm of waiting until the courts have issued their opinions is generally not. After all, unless the pregnancy is approaching term, there will still be time to kill the baby should the Texas law be found unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s decision not to issue an injunction that would not stop the law, does not prevent another court from deciding that a case brought against someone performing or receiving an abortion can be found unconstitutional as well. Nope, Governor Newsom isn’t happy, and someone is going to pay. So to whom does Governor Newsom focus his ire? On gun owners, of course.
The most unique aspect of the Texas Pro Life law is that it authorizes private parties to sue, rather than making abortion a criminal offense. Now I have my issues with this part of the Texas law, mostly on its vagary in who is allowed to sue. So I guess Governor Newsom is planning to allow private parties to sue California citizens for owning a legal firearm? That doesn’t really surprise me, as it complies with so many of the irrational attempts of the anti-gun movement to get around the law and the Second Amendment to get their way. I also find the language Governor Newsom used to be quite interesting. Yes, AR-15s have been described as the “Swiss Army knives of firearms”. Not because of their innocuous nature, but because of their versatility and ability to be customized. Just look at the comparison he’s making though; Governor Newsom claims that restricting “assault weapons” save people’s lives just after the Kyle Rittenhouse case where he used one to save his own life. He also claims that the Texas Pro Life abortion law puts women in harm’s way while ignoring the fact that many little girls and boys are killed every day in elective abortions.
Governor Newsom’s announcement is a double-whammy when it comes to infringing on people’s rights. Yes, he wants to deny people in California the right to keep and bear arms. He also wants to deny people their right to not be deprived of their life without due process of law. Not bad for a single announcement.
Conclusion
While all three of the examples I’ve used in this article relate to firearms, there is much more at stake. We’ve already seen governments claim the authority to control what you can say, how you run your business, even what you put into your body. All of these are infringements of the people’s rights protected by the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps it’s time We the People remind our employees in government of the consequences of failing to protect our rights.
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.
Declaration of Independence
Mr. Engel,
You just wrote: The Declaration of Independence lists some of our inalienable rights.
The correct word is: unalienable. There is a major difference between the two.
The powers that be archived the word unalienable and introduced inalienable.
Unalienable rights, as stated, are God-given and cannot be taken, given away or transferred. Inalienable ‘rights’ are State-given and can be removed at its will.
This is one of the reason the State wants God removed from everything.
One more thing, I just read your Re-cap of 2021 whereby you mentioned “trolls”. If that refers to me I would like to know as I do not ‘troll’ anyone.
Your site seems to advocate for discussion, pro or con, I thought. In any regard, I am not a troll. Just an old man trying to do the right things according to Divine Law.
Keith,
I want to start by saying, no you are not who I was talking about when I mentioned trolls. We may disagree, but we do so without being mean, unpleasant, or calling each other names.
As to you statement about the words inalienable vs. unalienable, they are synonymous. From Webster’s 1828 dictionary.
UNA’LIENABLE, adjective Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights. — http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/unalienable
INA’LIENABLE, adjective [Latin alieno, alienus.]
Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another. The dominions of a king are inalienable All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable The estate of a minor is inalienable without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature. — http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/inalienable
While comments on a previous post have been closed, I wanted to point out that need for citations. Without out them, it’s just one person’s word against another. That is why I include them, even in this post.
1-3-22 Mr. Engel,
I thank you for easing my mind that you may consider me a troll. I also mentioned my lack of including citations/dicta as taking up a lot of space. Well, here goes.
You are correct about your definitions (un and in alienable) gained from Webster’s 1828. However, Webster’s was merely a dictionary of the English Language, it was not, and never was intended to be, a law dictionary. We are governed, as a responsible society, by laws.
One of the main frauds perpetrated on the American public is how ‘government’ mixes and matches common language definitions with legal definitions to create ‘illusions’ on just what is law. In fact, the Kenyan, Obama, formally passed an act in 2013 I believe it was that ‘required’ government agencies to “use common words” in all its publications.
The practice of law used to be a science: words, descriptions, etc were required to be precise: nothing is to be vague; there are to be no assumptions or presumptions and all elements in a lawful writing were specifically defined. This is no longer true, thanks to the wordsmiths who have maligned our legal system, with the approval and under the auspices of Congress.
But, there is more. As you know the Declaration states, “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 and among those Rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (property also).” From the beginning of our Republic this specific word caused major problems for those (the European bankers) who today want to communize America.
The Declaration firmly established that the Creator (God) is our true Sovereign. God granted these Rights and only God can take them away. We cannot even give them away because they are God’s. The bankers knew they had to remove God and to establish government as our sovereign. So they ‘invented’ a ‘slick’ interpretation for inalienable.
Who first introduced the term unalienable rights? Thomas Jefferson, chief author of the Declaration of Independence, by using the word “unalienable,” claimed two things about our human rights. First, these rights are not given to us by the government. We have them even if the government does not respect them.
UNALIENABLE. 1-The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
2-Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their
nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of
particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as
pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty
are unalienable.
Now let me introduce the true sources for the definition of law as they pertain to our Republic’s documents and the rule of law.
William Blackstone, 18th century Common Law English jurist and judge defined unalienable in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:93. “Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.”
Further he states, “[T]he Due Process Clause protects the unalienable liberty recognized in the Declaration of Independence rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations.” Sandin v. Conner, U.S. 1995.
“Essentially, unalienable rights are inherent to being human and exist forever outside of the world of commerce; they cannot be bought, sold or transferred…ever.” (Pay particular attention to the phrase, “in commerce” it is essentially important and revealing.)
Referring now to “A Law Dictionary – Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and the Several States of the American Union by John Bouvier, Revised 6th Edition, 1856”. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856) defines unalienable:
“Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”
Now here is, inalienable.
Black‘s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition (1910) defines inalienable:
“Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty.” [Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97, 101, 1952]
In this decision, the Missouri Court of Appeals defined inalienable rights as those rights incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least without one’s consent.
“Inalienable right refers to rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else, especially a natural right such as the right to own property. However, these rights can be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights.”
According to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856), the meaning of inalienable starts out much the same as unalienable; but it morphs over time. Inalienable has evolved to mean rights that can be transferred with the consent of the person having them. If someone consents to transfer their rights, those rights can no longer be considered un-alienable, impossible to transfer, inherent human rights. They become rights “in commerce.”
Maybe you are scratching your head and still saying, so what? Here’s the deal. Inalienable rights (as currently defined) are transferable by one’s consent via contract, which includes the concept “social contract.”
Social contract theory originated with the political philosophy of Plato, was popularized by Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century, and then embedded deep into the concept of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Government in 1787.
On top of this ‘they’ inserted inalienable to replace unalienable in the middle 1800s. Why? My studies revealed, according to them, they changed words because unalienable was “too old a word, out of date”. They wanted to put in a more ‘modern’ word so they archived unalienable. This is what they are trying to do with the Constitution, “modernize it” because it is “out of date”. Sound familiar?
I mentioned earlier about “rights in commerce” and this is key to a lot of the confusion. You can lose, cede or transfer your rights if you are, according to government, a COMMERCIAL ENTITY.
Well, earlier Americans were Natural living human beings, they were not considered to be a legal-fiction, a commercial entity, a trust or anything in commerce. Thereby their unalienable rights remained intact and could not be taken from them nor could they give them away. But such a status did not prevail because if it was in commerce, according to them.
That is why the IRS had to change all of our statuses into commercial entities, they can only ‘tax’ those in commerce. In such a status the Constitution had no bearing on them.
Because government itself also considers us commercial entities is why they believe they can do all the crap that is going on today. And, very few in society are doing anything about this.
Also, Mr. Engel I would appreciate your opinion about what I mentioned earlier in another writing can government: 1-lawfully transfer power from one of the 3 agencies of government to another agency, 2-can government lawfully create or deny a right, and 3-does Congress have the lawful enumerated power to control the 2nd Amendment? Thank you.
Mr. Kaye, (I have changed to a more formal address since that is how you have been addressing me.)
I would point out that the length of your comment comes not from the citations, but from your commentary on them.
We agree that the common definitions of both unalienable and inalienable are the same. You make a point though, I did not realize there are multiple legal definitions for those words.
So, I do admit, while my statement was not wrong, (there are definition of both words that are synonymous), in the legal realm, unalienable is more accurate and less open to interpretation.
As for the follow-up. No, branches of the federal government have not been legitimately give the power to delegate their powers to the other branches. No, government cannot lawfully deny an unalienable right, in fact that is a federal crime (18 USC §242). However government does have the authority to regulate an alienable right, such as the right to vote, if it was given that authority by its constitution. (I go into more details in my article https://constitutionstudy.com/2018/12/14/expanding-on-what-is-a-right/) And no, the Constitution prohibits any government entity from controlling any right protected by the Constituiton, including the Second Amendment.
Paul,
I addressed you as Mr. Engel because in the past when I have Replied to different Websites and I used first names when I did not know the individual, I was berated for doing so as it was accused of me that I was condescending and/or I was immediately claiming to on the same level as the author. I know what I want to say but I am not sure that came out right, but Paul, you are hereby Noticed that I will continue to call you Paul until you get sick of it. Anyway. . .
Regarding my comments in my citations: when I cite something the proper way to make the citation, according to how I was taught, was to insert specific dicta with the citation. Most citations have several dictum within them so specificity is required to avoid being vague, evasive or confusing.
I thank you for your comments regarding the enumerated powers of government and what they are not allowed to do.
Just where did you get an ALienable right from? In its proper context, in my opinion, an unalienable right IS an alienable right because conditionally government has discretionary control over both. Again, I state the ‘difference’ between un and in alienable rights is to be distinguished by commercial status was an astounding discovery for me. A whole bunch of lights came on when I read that, a whole bunch indeed.
You threw a curve at me with your statement, “However government does have the authority to regulate an alienable right, such as the right to vote.” I disagree because the right to vote is a Constitutional guarantee and I thought we agreed that government does not have the enumerated power to create or take away a right. Again, without further discussion this goes back to our status. Maybe more on that later.
I did download your 2014 study and I will comment on that later.
Paul, thanks for putting up with me. I thank you for your time, consideration and knowledge.
Keith,
I understand, some people want to be more formal in their initial conversation. Me, I don’t worry about that so much, which is why I reply with a person’s first name.
As for your question about alienable rights, since the definition of unalienable is “Not alienable” (http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/unalienable), it brings up a logical question. If we are endowed with our creator with certain unalienable rights, are their rights that are alienable. To start with, we need to define what a right is. Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines a right, in this sense, as a “Just claim; immunity; privilege.” (http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/right) I go into more detail in the article I wrote Expanding on What is a Right (https://constitutionstudy.com/2018/12/14/expanding-on-what-is-a-right/)
As for the right to vote, can you tell me where God has endowed mankind with the right to vote? Yes, the right to vote is a just privilege, but was it granted by God or by law? Again, I go into more detail in the article.
I hope this helps clarify my position.
Paul,
Our Creator did not endow us with the right to vote, the Constitution addressed that issue. Voting is NOT a privilege it is a SACRED right that is inherent in our Republic’s philosophy and law. That is part of what separates us from historical mistakes governments have made.
Conditionally, we have the right to vote according to the rules for government as found in our Constitution. Some of the original conditions regarding voting have been changed thru amendments.
It is commonly stated America is a democracy; not true. Democracies fail mainly because they allow everyone to vote. America was not setup that way. Only White male landowners had the right to vote but as it were they were the ONLY ones paying taxes and paying to have a ‘government’.
Personally I doubt the lawfulness of every amendment passed since the Civil War. Every one of them has completely changed the ORIGINAL INTENT of our Founders and I do not believe that is lawfully proper, but I have no dicta to back that up. I have read that the Constitution, thru amendment or otherwise cannot be weakened, it can ONLY be strengthened.
The alienable rights you speak of were manufactured by the shysters when they ‘introduced’ inalienable rights in the States’ constitutions. All ‘tenuously’ agree we have God-given unalienable Rights EXCEPT IN COMMERCE. Then we, according to the thieves, have inalienable rights which are arbitrary, capricious and can be removed by government. It is unimaginable the Founders intended for the government to create or deny any rights! It’s absurd!
I read your Expanding on What is a Right only once. I will respond. Mostly your critique is correct with some few exceptions upon which you have no doubt I will jump all over yer butt. Thanks again, Paul.
So if our creator did not endow us with the right to vote, then it came from man. In other words, the right to vote was transferred to another, in this case when the Constitution was agreed to. Since it was transferred, it is alienable. While we may value it as sacred, means we would not willingly transfer it to another, that doesn’t mean it cannot be transferred.
You claim voting is not a privilege, but look at the definition of a right from Noah Webster:
Isn’t the right to vote a just privilege? And isn’t the call for free, fair, and transparent elections to exercise that right a just claim?
You statement about voting early in the republic is not entirely true. Yes, most states had a property ownership requirement, which could be land or personal property above a certain value. Yes, the vast majority of property owners were white men, but there were also white women and blacks who owned property and could therefore vote. ()
I always find it interesting when people pick and choose which amendments to the Constitution they will accept or where they will apply it. Not only does Article V place no limitations on what can be included in an amendment, but to do so would deny people the right to alter their government, the very right claimed by the colonists when they declared independence.