Inalienable rights - do Americans have them or not?

[derby378]

Poll question: Inalienable rights - do Americans have them or not?

Inspired by a recent discussion on how much power the Supreme Court has to take away your Constitutional rights as well as reflections on the Whiskey Rebellion, torture under the Bush administration, etc. So what's your take?

[Demeter]

1. They can try to take away our unalienable rights

and the movement to do so is strong and vocal, but we must defend and protect those rights for all of us--citizen or not.

An undefended right is no right at all.

[pscot]

2. The only rights we have

are the ones we can hang on to. Ben Franklin told us that, in so many words: a republic, if you can keep it.

[derby378]

3. Excellent point (n/t)

[anarch]

4. "inalienable" seems to imply that they're sort of inherent

like, not "rights" given to you by law, but rights that simply exist

so, if Americans are people, then they have such rights

doesn't mean they can't be violated...just makes it justifiable to defend them

[derby378]

6. I think some folks don't quite grasp that concept

It's not a matter of selfishness - it's just a matter of what is and isn't rightfully ours.

[mmonk]

5. We're supposed to have them.

The government thinks otherwise at times.

[TexasObserver]

7. Our rights are whatever the Supreme Court rules.

If they were inalienable in reality, we wouldn't have "free speech zones" and police wouldn't be able to arrest you for failing to provide identification on their whim.

[derby378]

8. Looks like you just proved my point for me

I don't recognize any need for "free speech zones" or violations of probable cause.

[TexasObserver]

9. The court rules what rights you have, and those are the rights you have.

Your rights exist only because a court will protect them. When they decide you don't have a right, it's gone, as with free speech.

[derby378]

11. You misspoke - it's the COURT that is irrelevant

We try to get along with our current Supreme Court because we want to believe in the need for an impartial referee on Constitutional issues. But the Supreme Court is not Ramtha - they cannot create their own reality. So if they declare our Constitutional rights null and void, they are irrelevant.

Just ask Galileo. He was confronted with a court that tried to control reality, too.

[TexasObserver]

12. It doesn't matter whether one likes their rulings or not.

I don't usually like them when they rule regarding what you think of as "inalienable rights." Their rulings control our rights, and that's why winning presidential elections matters, and why appointments to the court matter.

Wishing the world existed the way you want it to be in your head is fine, but don't get confused about what is versus what you want.

[boppers]

10. UNalienable vs. INalienable?

Different words, meaning different things. Life, liberty (etc.) are unalienable, inherent to all. In addition to unalienable rights, we also have inalienable rights, which are rights that we cannot sell, transfer, bargain, etc.

More on it here:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inalienable

[Ozymanithrax]

13. No...There are no inalienable/unalienable rights in the U.S. Constitution...

Now, the Declaration of Independence mentions "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." But out rights are based on the U.S. Constitution and they do not appear there.

[Lagomorph]

14. Start here....

but realize, it's only a start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

[PufPuf23]

15. Other - Inalienable means inalienable but ......

we are in unknown and lawless territory.

[Selatius]

16. It's just words on paper. Authority only recognizes something because of the threat of force.

For example, a government that rigs elections and suspends civil liberties may face the prospect of millions of unhappy citizens storming government offices and the legislature to overthrow that government. A government with some semblance of self-preservation would be wise not to give the population it rules over an excuse to rebel, such as stripping away their freedom.

If you live in a country that is constantly chipping away at whatever rights people have, you're in a situation where the people have atrophied as a force because they either no longer care enough beyond day-to-day concerns or are divided as a force against government abuse.

[Vehl]

17. on top of the main ones, I believe the "right to food" should be included as well.

before someone flames me for being a socialist...i think this should be one of the basic fundamental rights of humans all over the world.

this however need not mean that people can eat while sitting around and doing nothing...they should work...but in emergencies, even if they do not work/dont have work, they should not be forced to worry about food.

:)