Unalienable -vs- Inalienable
We hold these truths to be self evident...
Index:
Introduction:
The purpose of this page is to document scriptural references indicating the importance of knowing and using the true name of our Heavenly Father and HIS son the Messiah.
Dear United States Citizens
If you misquote this famous line from the United States Declaration of Independence, you may be inadvertently compromising and surrendering your freedom.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain una-LIEN-able rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
UNALIENABLE
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523.
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
INALIENABLE
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be ALIENATED by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.
The rest of this note was written by Michael Shaw in his article, "Understanding Unalienable Rights".
Why do we use the term unalienable instead of inalienable? Inalienable rights are subject to changes in the law such as when property rights are given a back seat to emerging environmental law or free speech rights give way to political correctness. Whereas under the original doctrine of unalienable rights, these rights cannot be abridged.
Webster's 1828 dictionary defines unalienable as "not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as in unalienable rights" and inalienable as "cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another." The Declaration of Independence reads:
"That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…"
This means that human beings are imbued with unalienable rights which cannot be altered by law whereas inalienable rights are subject to remaking or revocation in accordance with man-made law. Inalienable rights are subject to changes in the law such as when property rights are given a back seat to emerging environmental law or free speech rights give way to political correctness. In these situations no violation has occurred by way of the application of inalienable rights - a mere change in the law changes the nature of the right. Whereas under the original doctrine of unalienable rights the right to the use and enjoyment of private property cannot be abridged (other than under the doctrine of "nuisance" including pollution of the public water or air or property of another). The policies behind Sustainable Development work to obliterate the recognition of unalienable rights. For instance, Article 29 subsection 3 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights applies the "inalienable rights" concept of human rights:
"Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the United Nations."
Many call for a "Civil Society" which argues for a statutory framework that does not give recognition of the imbued nature of unalienable rights.
Modern dictionaries blur the difference, as does modern intellectual thought. The modern definition of unalienable is the same as the historical definition of inalienable. The contemporary blurring of the meaning of unalienable and inalienable is evidence of the process of dictionary evolution that Orwell forecasted in "1984."
Exerpts from the Declaration of Independence
...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these...
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these...
...appealing to the Supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,...
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
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.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Questions & Answers
Q: 'What has happened to our individual compasses of truth, reason, logic and self-determination? '
A: The human race has turned away from the laws of God Almighty and adopted, promoted and enforced the laws (and traditions) of man.
All the major religions have a dozen or so 'laws' that they all claim came from God Almighty on how individuals and societies should function for the good of the human race. If you do a comparison, they are all pretty much the same, none of them are impossible, and they seem quite sensible.
Q: So if these people comprise over 70% of the world's population, then why aren't these principles the 'law of the land' ANYWHERE in the world?
A: Because, according to Black's Law Dictionary, the law (of man) deals with inalienable rights. Inalienable rights can be altered or transferred because they are subject the government that created them.
Unalienable rights are given from God Almighty and therefore cannot be altered or transferred. Governments and Lawyers recognize this legal fact and that is why they always try to use the word inalienable when referring to legal rights.
My View of Modern Day Tyranny
Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.
When America turned from the unalienable rights stated in the Declaration of Independence and embraced the inalienable rights stated in the Constitution of the United States, America was doomed.
Are you still clinging to the illusion of a two party system. Where have the Republicans been for the last 2-3 years? Republicrat or Democran, makes no difference. Just different ends of the same snake. Poison on one end, feces on the other.
Personally, I do not hold Trump in high regard but the fact is that he was the 45th President of the United States.
During his presidency, the US Government spent MILLIONS of tax payer dollars impeaching him twice for what appears to be nonsense.
They censored the standing President of the United States!
They illegally cut of funds to the standing President of the United States!
The US Government illegally raided the home of an ex-President of the United States with fully loaded automatic rifles, seeking documents they knew were in a secure vault on the premises that the US Government had previously built for him!
And where were the Republicans during all this? Doing just what they have been told to do and keeping their mouths shut while the American people were brutalized.
America has no rudder. American justice, legality, morality and ethics are all based on a bank statement.
REFERENCE LINKS:
-
The Price They Paid in 1776 (WWW.THEKEYOFKNOWLEDGE.NET)