Unalienable rights

From The TSP Survival Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

In America, unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once and for all. This fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation's birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence:

"[A]ll men are created equal...[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the fact that these rights are "God-given." If they are not given to us by an Authority higher than human government, then they are in danger of being abolished by government at any time. If government could abolish them or license them, or restrict them at any time, then they are simply a privilege rather than a right. The Founding Fathers understood this principle and created a revolution in political theory by enacting, for the first time in history, a government specifically established to protect the rights that had been given to man by God.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

According to the 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, freedoms, 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, abrogated, 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.

An exhaustive list of the unalienable rights possessed by man would probably fill several volumes which is why the Founding Fathers included the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

However, 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). (Second Amendment)
  2. To own and carry weapons (firearms) for self-defense and for ensuring that the nation remains free. (Second Amendment)
  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 freely migrate within the country or to leave the country.
  6. To worship -- or not worship -- God in the manner one chooses. (First Amendment)
  7. To associate with -- or disassociate from -- any person or group. (First Amendment)
  8. To express any idea through print, voice, banner, or other media. (First Amendment)
  9. To be secure in one’s home, papers, and person against unwarranted searches and seizures (privacy). (Fourth Amendment)
  10. To be advised of the charges, in the event of arrest. (Sixth Amendment)
  11. To have a judge determine if the accused should be held for trial or for punishment.
  12. To be tried by a jury of one's peers and face one's accuser, in the event of being charged with a crime. (Seventh Amendment)
  13. To be tried by a jury of one's peers, in the event of a suit in which the disputed amount is substantive. (Seventh Amendment - see also Jury nullification)
  14. To suffer no cruel or unusual punishment. (Eighth Amendment)
  15. To establish, monitor, control, and petition our servant government to help secure the above rights.
  16. To abolish said government, when it becomes destructive of these rights. (Tenth Amendment - see State's rights and Militia in Second Amendment)


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. Preachers, pastors, civic leaders, and lawyers drew extensively from the Bible's teachings on morality, Creation, and the nature of God to support this position, and the American public was very receptive. By 1775 the concept of unalienable rights was firmly entrenched in the collective consciousness of the thirteen colonies, having been sharpened by decades of abuse and taxation under British colonial rule. The time was right for change. In the hope of achieving a new political construct dedicated to preserving each person’s God-given rights and liberties, American patriots severed all ties with the British Crown and initiated a daring war against the most powerful nation at that time:

  • “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)
  • “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.”
    -- William Blackstone, Authority on English Law
  • “[A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.”
    -- George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights
  • “To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example, of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre,
    in favor of private rights and public happiness.”
    -- James Madison, Father of the Constitution
  • “The public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual's private rights.”
    -- William Blackstone, Authority on English Law
  • “The principle view of human law is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute.”
    -- William Blackstone

The successful conclusion of the War for Independence in 1783 left the Americans free of their British oppressors, but faced with the daunting task of creating a new type of government that would transform the dream of universally protected God-given rights into a practical reality. Nothing like this before had ever been attempted. Consequently, the representatives of the thirteen states who assembled for the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia (1787) had no illusions that the destiny of the new nation lay in their hands. To their great credit, they soon produced a legal manuscript which is arguably the greatest charter of liberty the world has ever known: the Constitution of the United States of America. This document, along with its first ten amendments -- commonly called the Bill of Rights -- set forth the framework and mechanisms by which the unalienable rights of the People would be recognized and protected from overreaching officials. Simply put, the Constitution establishes a limited government (a Constitutional Republic) that is empowered to protect the unalienable rights of the People, and is prohibited from doing virtually anything else. After two hundred years, the principle of unalienable rights, though buffeted by statism, atheism, communism, socialism, the nanny state-police state and individual ambition, remains at the core of American political, legal, economic, and social theory:

  • “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
    -- Preamble to the Bill of Rights
    (NOTE: This means the Bill of Rights is not a grant of rights, but a prohibition against government infringement. It also means the Bill of Rights takes precedence over the main body of the Constitution.)
  • “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

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.


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. 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. First, the land must be used for a public benefit. 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. For example, churches are not taxed. This is why, beyond a basic sales tax common to all goods, excessive or additional taxation ("sin tax") on firearms and ammunition has been determined to be unconstitutional in some states.[1][2]

Threats & Safeguards

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

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

Human Rights

"Human rights" is often used interchangeably with the term "unalienable rights." The difference between these two concepts, however, is that 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.

In the 20th century, secular humanist concepts of human rights proliferated: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the American Convention on Human Rights; the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights; the European Convention of Human Rights; various United Nations conferences' declarations on the environment, [[economic development, AIDS, and other topics; and the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols.

The most well-known example of human rights is the United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights or UDHR. This document contains thirty articles listing about fifty rights authored and approved by the UN under the leadership of liberal Eleanor Roosevelt, among others. At the time the UN Declaration was ratified by its members, it was hailed by Americans as a major advancement in the cause of liberty.

The Universal Declaration provides:

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.

The first International Conference on Human Rights was held in Tehran, Iran, in 1968. A powerful bloc of Asian, African, and Arab states successfully asserted their control over the UN Human Rights Program. Their aggressive conference diplomacy was the culmination of a major transition in UN politics, with supposedly Western notions of individual freedom rejected in favor of an agenda that privileged economic modernization and the collective rights of peoples in Third World nations over those of individuals in those nations. Twenty years after the iconic image of Eleanor Roosevelt holding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the residual elements of the program she presided over were repudiated in a storm of insistent demands from the new anti-colonial order.[7]

The UDHR implicitly asserted that human rights are superior to notions of state sovereignty and called for the imposing of moral standards across the globe. These notions of universal human rights derive in part from Wilsonianism--the efforts of President Woodrow Wilson after World War I. They were reiterated in 2002 by President George W. Bush in his refusal to recognize Iraqi sovereignty and his efforts to impose a new democratic system of governance upon Iraq, and are a component of the Neoconservative effort to spread democracy in the Middle East, even in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The UN has supported this program, but the high cost has troubled Americans.


Deeply influenced by the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Indian constitution provides for a host of rights, including the right of equality, cultural and religious freedoms, and the right to education. Discrimination based on race, caste, gender, birthplace, and religion was subsequently outlawed. Yet, political and social realities have intruded. Because of India's multiplicity of religious and ethnic groups, each with their own traditions and beliefs, and the complex interplay between these groups, the principles contained in the constitution have not always been followed in practice.

Further reading

  • Burke, Roland. "From Individual Rights to National Development: the First UN International Conference on Human Rights, Tehran, 1968," Journal of World History 2008 19(3): 275-296, in EBSCO
  • Devine, Carol et al. Human Rights: The Essential Reference (1999) online edition
  • Langley, Winston E. Encyclopedia of Human Rights Issues since 1945 (1999) online edition

Primary sources

  • UN. Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments - Vol. 1 pt. 1 (2002) by Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Geneva; online edition


  1. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 1983, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a heavy tax on printer's ink violated the First Amendment freedom of the press. http://law.jrank.org/pages/12734/Minneapolis-Star-v-Minnesota-Commissioner-Revenue.html, http://supreme.justia.com/us/460/575/case.html "That a state special tax assessment on ink and paper used in publication of the Star Tribune newspaper violated freedom of the press." "Decision Upheld the Minnesota Star's claim and overturned the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision that the special tax did not violate the newspaper's constitutional protections." http://law.jrank.org/pages/12734/Minneapolis-Star-v-Minnesota-Commissioner-Revenue.html">Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue - Significance, Equal Treatment Of The Press, Benefit Or Burden?, Impact.
  2. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021012346#post13
  3. "Waging war “against them (the States)” is an act of treason, and as per the Constitution, a State can only be “protected” by the central government on the application of the legislature or the executive in the case of invasion. Abraham Lincoln violated both constitutional safeguards against coercion by the central government in 1861, of course only if the states remained in the Union, as he insisted they did. If not, war required a declaration of war from Congress, something Lincoln did not have, and by declaring war, Congress would have recognized the Confederate States as a legitimate government. Either way, Lincoln violated the Constitution, thus rendering the “bloody nose” argument against secession void." Fair use commentary. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal
  4. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/06/could-texas-really-secede-from-the-union-the-answer-is
  5. "The Union, then, through a declaration of war could attempt to force the seceded States to remain, but even if victorious that would not solve a philosophical issue. War and violence do not and cannot crush the natural right of self-determination. It can muddle the picture and force the vanquished into submission so long as the boot is firmly planted on their collective throats, but a bloody nose and a prostrate people settles nothing. Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut said in 1788 that he feared a “coercion of arms” in relation to a delinquent state. “This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity. No coercion is applicable to such bodies, but that of an armed force. If we should attempt to execute the laws of the Union by sending an armed force against a delinquent state, it would involve the good and the bad, the innocent and the guilty, in the same calamity.” Ellsworth recognized, as did the majority of the founding generation, that force did not destroy sovereignty. It created artificial supremacy, but sovereignty, the basic tenant of the founding, could not be surrendered in such a manner. Sovereignty, in fact, cannot be surrendered at all; it can be delegated, as in the powers granted to the general government in Article I, but never surrendered." "His “Pledge of Allegiance” analogy is the most absurd argument of the bunch. The modern pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist minister who wanted to indoctrinate American schoolchildren with a nationalist message, one based on the “great speeches” of Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln in relation to the “One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove.” Sprinkle in some “liberty and justice” from the French Revolution and you have a message that any good leftist nationalist can embrace. The founding generation would not have said such a pledge, if for no other reason that most did not view the United States as a “nation” in the strict sense of the word, a single people." Fair use commentary. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/
  6. Otherwise known as coerced income redistribution - a euphemism for communism.
  7. Burke (2008)

See Also

Personal tools