What I consider as “inalienable” is self-contained and independent in and of itself. Not dependent or reliable on an outside source.
As a human being, one has the inalienable right to walk upright, the inalienable right to breath, the inalienable right to speak, etc. All of these are independent of any outside enabler. They are self-contained.
Certainly inalienable rights can be violated, there may even be a law passed that forbids one to speak, however, that does not remove one’s ability to speak. You still have the inalienable right to speak, you just may be punished for exercising that right.
I recognize that there are rights that are not inalienable. For instance, the right to drive an automobile on the highway.
This would not be an inalienable right because one is dependent on having access to an automobile and a highway.
Now, give us your definition of an inalienable right.
You’re exactly right there, in fact, those who wish to impose further restrictions on the right to gun ownership could care less on the constitutionality of their legislative efforts.
A prime example of the gun-control lobby’s disdain for the Constitution is illustrated by the Lautenberg Amendment.
Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey attached an amendment to a bill that make it illegal for a person to own a firearm, who had previously been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.
The Constitution specifically forbids ex post facto law.
The Lautenberg Amendment is nothing less than ex post facto.
There are very few inalienable rights. No law would bother recognizing them because it would be silly to make a law recognizing something like gravity or breathing (to use your example) or thinking (to use mine). An inalienable right is something which is unaffected by any law.
The Declaration of Independence listed inalienable rights but that document, important as it is, was an article of propaganda not an article of law. A little hyperbole is justified in that context. But when the same people sat down to write the Constitution and start making actual laws a few years later, they worked in a stricter format and didn’t claim any right was inalienable.
So to answer your question, I’d define an inalienable right in the literal sense; it’s a right that cannot be eliminated by any law. And by that definition, there are very few inalienable rights. Why do Americans have the right to own guns and Canadians and North Koreans not have that right? Because the United States has different laws than Canada or North Korea. So the right to own guns can obviously be restricted or eliminated by laws.
Lest anyone thinks that you have any clue what you are talking about Razorsharp, here’s some cases for you:
U.S. v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d at 322; United States v. Farmer, 73 F.3d 836, 841 (8th Cir. 1996); McHugh v. Rubin, 49 F. Supp. 2d 105, 108 (E.DN.Y. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 220 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2000); United States v. Boyd, 52 F. Supp. 2d 1233, 1236-37 (D. Kan. 1999), aff’d, 211 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Hicks, 992 F. Supp. 1244, 1246 (D. Kan. 1997); United States v. Meade, 986 F. Supp. 66, 69 (D. Mass. 1997), aff’d, 175 F.3d 215 (1st Cir. 1999); Nat’l Ass’n of Gov’t Employees v. Barrett, 968 F. Supp. 1564, 1575-76 (N.D. Ga. 1997), aff’d sub. nom Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 1998).
All of them rejected your uncited assertion that the Lautenberg Amendment violates he Ex Post Facto Clause. I know in the past you’ve refused to provide citations for your legal assertions, but you might want to do a bit of research anyway, just to avoid misleading people.
Nobody has taken anything in my scenario. You are on an island and the food belongs to someone else. You haven’t taken anything at this point. Do you have the right to gather food?
I’ve already provided an answer to your scenerio before, but what the heck, I’ll play along.
Sure, I have an inalienable right to conduct my life as I see fit, what’s to stop, me other than my conscience or the fact that I may get shot by the owner of the food who may exercise his right to protect his property, or I may be incarcerated by the legal system for violating a civil statute.
Whatever the case may be, the choice is mine to make. It’s my inalienable right.
Actually it wasn’t a comparison between countries. OliverH said that homicide will increase with the availability of firearms. You can roll your eyes all you want, but this is not true in the US.
Razorsharp, it sounds like you’re describing the anarchist position, that says you have the right to do anything you and, and so does everyone else. Your definition of “inalienable right” is pointless because you’ve given everyone the inalienable right to do anything whatsoever, including interfere with other people in their exercise of their inalienable rights. This defines an anarchy, rather than a civil society.
Tell me, have you been reading a lot of Ayn Rand lately?
I need not provide a “citation”, for I know what ex post facto is.
You, on the otherhand, probably know too, but are so beholden to the judiciary to implement an ideology that would never pass muster at the ballot box, that you are willing to turn a blind-eye to an injustice so long as it favors your ideological world-view.
Let’s create an analogy:
Several years ago, a DUI conviction did not necessarily mean that you would lose your license to drive. Sometimes, rather that fight the charge, a defendant would just admit guilt, pay a fine and, perhaps, tolerate some probation knowing that he would still be allowed to drive.
A year later, the legislature passes a law, declaring that anyone previously convicted of DUI must turn in their license and be prohibited from driving.
This is precisely what the Lautenberg Amendment has done with the issue of firearms ownership. It is ex post facto and is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.
You can cite case law after case law. It don’t mean nuthin’ to me or anyone else with the ability to see through your smoke-screen.
What you need to do is realize that it is not uncommon for today’s judiciary to act expediently rather than judiciously.
But what the heck, you don’t care, so long as it’s not your ox gettin’ gored.
Obviously not, because you are completely wrong in your assertion. I point out case after case showing that you are, indeed, wrong. You don’t even bother to read the cases, and merely come back with the ever so convincing argument that every court that has considered the issue is wrong and I, the mighty Razorsharp am right. Forget the federal appellate judiciary and their almost uniform treatment of the issue, for I am the Amazing Razorsharp. Your absolute conviction in your own assertions, despite the fact you are wrong, is simply astounding.
I see you haven’t started adding any substance to your posts other than partisan attacks. Let me know if you wish to make a actual intelligent point.
Let’s see. Who do I trust making this assertion. You, or the multitudes of courts that have ruled quite the opposite. Razorsharp… Federal judiciary…Razorsharp… Federal judiciary… Hmm, tough call.
Your rampant dismissal of authority is jaw-dropping in it’s magnitude and stupidity.
Ummm, Razor, you were the one who claimed life was an inalienable right.
And I was the one who said there were no inalienable rights worth mentioning.
Now I suppose it might be fun for us to switch sides now, but if I have to try to defend what you’ve said so far, you really haven’t left me much to work with.
Again, you’re missing the point. You seem to be hung up on the idea that laws = restrictions. Admittedly, many do. But sometimes a law secures a right or eliminates restrictions. In the case of the Constitution, most of the document (outside of the procedural sections) has been used to enact various rights into law.
Yes, and I still consider life to be an inalienable right, I was just echoing the sentiments of OliverH by mentioning the death penalty.
The constitution is a document that listed the guidelines for the newly created federal government. It was designed to limit the government so as to protect the inalienable rights of the people and to protect the sovereignty of the states.
Take the Bill of Rights for instance. They do not confer any rights. Each of the Amendments is a stricture and limitation of power on the Federal Government.