Happy 240th, America. It can be difficult to help US citizens of today realize why they have inalienable rights. Socialists would have you believe they are “universal” rights. But that kind of thinking is corrupt. Everyone has a universal right— and any judge, government, politician and tyrant can decide whether and under what conditions you should keep or lose your “universal” right. That kind of thinking is foreign to the Declaration of Independence (1776), The Constitution (1787) and the Bill of Rights (1791).
Under inalienable rights every human is given them by “nature’s” God. They are God-given rights, not man-decided rights. No one can take an inalienable right away from you. Under inalienable rights, it must be a collective decision that the group makes as to what rights they will negotiate in order to have the security of the group. Our Bill of Rights, or the first Ten Amendments are rights we refuse to negotiate. That’s because they are inalienable, not universal. You cannot even take away your own inalienable right. This is the idea behind the Fifth Amendment. Since the framing generation did not have an unlimited supply of pen and paper (or vellum), they spoke in limiting parameters; or said another way, they wrote what would be considered the outside limit of an institution or the demarcation line of exemplar, standard or even precedent. For example, we have limited government; that means branches of government are not allowed to go over a certain line. Because government was the highest human authority, it was the government that is limited in the First Amendment. That means that free speech, both religious and political or otherwise is permitted in government, on the job and in the public square. Why? Because government was the boundary line for the First Amendment— government itself and everything under the authority of human government— business, job, public square, etc., is where the people can exercise their First Amendment rights.
You can follow this line of thinking through every single one of the first Ten Amendments, or what we call our Bill of Rights. In the Second Amendment we have three demarcations: a militia, the state and the individual (the people). The Third Amendment sets its boundary for the military in “times of peace.” The Fourth Amendment carries even more boundary lines: persons, houses, papers and effects, (places and persons), etc. The limitation is upon the court and/or those carrying out law. Government has tried to exclude various technologies, especially covering Internet-capable technologies, saying this was not included. But the courts have reasoned against that, saying that a person’s effects, though not specifically stated as a cellphone, is still their “effect.”
Look at the legal understanding from Jefferson and Hamilton evident in these two thoughts concerning our civil rights, which are also religious rights, and then read modern news feeds concerning what progressive-socialistic bureaucrats, politicians and judges consider as American ‘rights’:
“But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united.”1 Thomas Jefferson
Because our rights are connected to science, or the science of nature and nature’s God, the only “job” the government does have is in making sure that all rights are honored. Here is Hamilton:
“Hence, also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at a more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man a right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience.”2 Alexander Hamilton
I leave you this month with a portion of the Declaration of Independence. To prove how corrupt our government has become, there are those who would make the premise of our inalieanble rights non-binding. But remember what our present progressive socialists have done with laws they do not like; they will just ignore them. (see footnote 2) We must ignore the egregious manipuation of our inalienable rights and reach out to all Americans warning them of what is coming: imprisonment through the loss of our inalieanble rights.
The Unanimous Declaration of the
Thirteen United States of America
In Congress, July 4, 1776
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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.3
1. Thomas Jefferson. “Query XVII. Notes on Virginia” in “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson.” Edited by H.A. Washington. Volume 8 (New York: H.W. Derby, 1861) 402
2. Alexander Hamilton, “The Farmer Refuted” in “The Works of Alexander Hamilton.” Edited by John C. Hamilton. Volume 2 (New York: John f. Trow, 1850) 44. Public domain. I use this quote to show the understanding that inalienable rights are not to be negotiated and when men or government try to do so, we are not obligated to comply. Obama used that argument when he ignored the federal Defense of Marriage Act. We must use it now as our own defense for civil and religious liberty.
3. (excerpted) Declaration of Independence. Can be seen on your favorite site or from this one <http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/the-declaration-of-independence>