An Unalienable Right - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By The Resister
#15155913
There seemed to be no category save of this topic and in my view, it is the most important thing any person needs to know at this juncture in history. I remained convinced that for all intents and purposes that Donald Trump was, most likely, the last American president. The new thing is for people to think of themselves as Democratic Socialists (sic). For me, here is the thing:

America was founded upon certain presuppositional principles. In the Declaration of Independence, it states:

"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."

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past." (sic) 12 June 1823

founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-3562

Of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote:

The Declaration of Independence...[is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.” Thomas Jefferson, 1819

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/file ... /M-654.pdf

The unalienable Rights articulated in the Declaration of Independence were codified into law by the Bill of Rights:

unlhumanrights.org/01/0102/0102_08.htm (This link erroneously calls them "inalienable" rights, but we will discuss this as it is a primary part of the topic.

That is the starting presupposition of what I'm going to say and I'm going to do several parts of this just so you know where I'm coming from.
#15155914
There are all kinds of "rights." In most cases, rights are a grant given by the government. In the 14th Amendment, the government purports to give people "privileges and immunities." In the Declaration of Independence, the presuppositional thinking was that you have unalienable Rights, bestowed upon you by a Creator. In law, these unalienable Rights have been defined in court rulings and some of they synonymous language is irrevocable, absolute, natural, inherent, and above the law. We also refer to these Rights as God given (since they are bestowed upon you by your Creator, your God, whomever you deem that to be). Let's see how the early court decisions interpreted your unalienable Rights.

"By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

In short, your unalienable / absolute Rights do not depend on the Constitution for their existence. They exist with or without the Constitution as they predate the Constitution. They are above the reach of the government. Don't believe me? Let's go to a United States Supreme Court holding:

"..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So you have Rights that are NOT granted by the Constitution; they are NOT dependent on the Constitution for their existence; those Rights exist. The United States Supreme Court in Cruikshank upheld all of the earlier court decisions that echoed this sentiment. Let's look at a couple of Second Amendment rulings by the state courts so that you understand the concept:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

The United States Supreme Court in its earliest decisions ruled:

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. " BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

So, what in the world happened here? Today, the rules are 180 degrees opposite of what the Constitution was meant to say. I have more that I want you to consider:

In Marbury v. Madison the United States Supreme Court began trying to crown itself as the ultimate dictatorial power in America by ruling themselves to be the "final arbiters" of what the law is. They began reinterpreting their own rulings until they changed the entire meaning of the Constitution. They set themselves up to legislate from the bench; they began to pretend they could give powers to the other two branches of government. Then, of course was the illegally ratified 14th Amendment that rescinded the Bill of Rights and made them subject to the courts. This is an important point. It is one NOBODY here should miss.

Our country was founded on the presupposition that you have absolute Rights. Our earliest courts understood and ruled consistent with the sentiments of the founders and framers:

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature” Benjamin Franklin

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry

“...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual" Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819)

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." John Adams, second President of the United States

There is one more thing I'd like to quote for you to consider. In George Washington's Farewell Address, he admonished us:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

http://www.mountvernon.org/library/digi ... -though-t/

George Washington was right and history proved him right. Today you have a bunch of babbling buffoons with the mind games telling you that unalienable isn't unalienable based upon their private interpretations. All I can say is that the matter has been argued, litigated, and defined. The courts had NO AUTHORITY to change the meaning of the law. We were lied to, deceived, hornswoggled, duped; we were forced through duress; cheated through fraud and the social contract known as the Constitution of the United States was breached to the point that it cannot be fixed. So, you can choose to accept the interpretations of Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Democrats, Progressives, or some devious political propaganda prostitute OR the interpretations of the founders and framers and confirmed by the earliest court decisions. It's up to you. In my final installment, I will explain HOW the puppetmasters rescinded your Rights.
#15155916
If you were to ask a layman to tell you the difference between an inalienable right and an unalienable Right, they would argue until they were blue in the face that they are the same thing. They are not. And because they are not, our unalienable Rights were taken by fraud. I've told you what constitutes an unalienable Right. In none of those decisions did the courts ever to them as inalienable.

In 1868 the 14th Amendment was passed, presumably, to "guarantee equal civil and legal rights to black citizens."

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=43

A hundred years later, Black people were marching in the streets for "civil and legal" rights. Everybody forgot about unalienable Rights... except the courts. While we were busy fighting race wars and and getting distracted, the courts did something really unique. They quit using the terminology unalienable and replaced it with the word inalienable. They created a completely different definition for that word "inalienable."

[b"]Unalienable[/b] - Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE." Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

Now let me give you the definition for "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." - Black's Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, page 683

Here is a major difference between these two words: You are not allowed to forfeit an unalienable Right. Think not? Watch what happens to next person you see who attempts suicide and fails. The law was clear. So, in order to expand their power over you, the courts expanded their vocabulary and added the word inalienable. BTW, the last hard copy edition of Blacks Law Dictionary I saw omitted the word unalienable.

Now, let me take you back to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment provides protection for "immunities and privileges" The word right, rights, Right, or Rights does not appear in the 14th Amendment. In effect, the United States Supreme Court first created Preamble Citizens and later 14th Amendment citizens. Next, the courts would try to place everyone under the purview of the 14th Amendment. WHY?

Up until the 14th Amendment you had these unalienable Rights that were ruled by the FIRST RULINGS of the United States Supreme Court to be above the law and they existed separate and apart from the Constitution. Those were God given Rights. With the 14th Amendment, people were granted government privileges that we now call "rights." And so, with a little judicial prestidigitation, a little redefining of words and your unalienable Rights went south. Don't believe me? Now you've witnessed the early court decisions I cited. Let's watch as the courts change the meaning of the law by adding new words to their decisions and screwing you over. According to the Heller decision, the United States Supreme Court held:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

What the Hell? The Second Amendment is not "unlimited?" What happened is that the court took a word that they had never legally defined in that context "unlimited" and redefined it to justify gun control. But wait. I built this entire case for the Second Amendment being absolute all the way up to the United States Supreme Court and now what they've done is to legislate from the bench by redefining words. You see, the argument I made about absolute Rights (aka unalienable Rights) was never addressed. Instead the court redefined the word unlimited to CREATE government granted rights. Here is the problem: The word absolute and unlimited in layman language are synonyms:

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/absolute?s=t

The United States Supreme Court took away your unalienable Rights and replaced them with government created privileges they call rights. Here is your proof. In 2010 the United States Supreme Court held:

"In People v. Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald:
Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense" (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right" (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that "[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day
" (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_ ... of_Chicago
By B0ycey
#15155943
@The Resister

There is an awful lot of words here that can easily be said in a few words. So your definition of the two meanings, although simular by definition is that one dictates the right cannot be removed no matter what and the other it can removed but under concensus. OK. Fine. So what rights from the constitution have been removed in any case? There is a huge difference in removal and legislation. But in terms of guns and the second amendment which you brought up, that was to allow the existence a well regulated militia for the security of the state. It is one sentence. One amendment. And as such one meaning. It means that you shall have the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed so you can join a militia and secure the security of your state. It doesn't mean you can shoot up Walmart. But in any case, I do find it ironic that you brought up a court case to highlight the meaning of the right when you won't accept other rulings by the state when it comes to your "inalienable rights". And that despite it being beneficial in terms of lives saved to ban guns, no state has outlawed the second amendment in any case because it is the constitution. The same is true with the First amendment and free speech that you mentioned in the other thread. Nobody has removed free speech. Terms and conditions doesn't restrict your free speech. You are free to go about and spout your conspiracy nonsense somewhere else. What they do however is give the user and business rules and guidance they they both sign up for in a contract in order to protect both of their best interests. You break the terms, your free speech isn't banned but you won't be able to use someone elses platform to speak them. The same way I cannot use cameras in the oval office to broadcast my free speech to the nation just because I want to tell everyone that Manning not Brady was/is the best quarterback to grace the NFL. So you can see that there is a huge difference outlawing/legislation free speech and granting a free platform to execute such a right.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15155950
The Resister wrote:An Unalienable Right

Natural rights lack any ontological basis, except to the extent that they reflect the personal desires of those propagating them.

In proportion to the want of happiness resulting from the want of rights, a reason exists for wishing that there were such things as rights. But reasons for wishing there were such things as rights, are not rights; - a reason for wishing that a certain right were established, is not that right - want is not supply - hunger is not bread.

— Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies


:)
#15156012
B0ycey wrote:@The Resister

There is an awful lot of words here that can easily be said in a few words. So your definition of the two meanings, although simular by definition is that one dictates the right cannot be removed no matter what and the other it can removed but under concensus. OK. Fine. So what rights from the constitution have been removed in any case? There is a huge difference in removal and legislation. But in terms of guns and the second amendment which you brought up, that was to allow the existence a well regulated militia for the security of the state. It is one sentence. One amendment. And as such one meaning. It means that you shall have the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed so you can join a militia and secure the security of your state. It doesn't mean you can shoot up Walmart. But in any case, I do find it ironic that you brought up a court case to highlight the meaning of the right when you won't accept other rulings by the state when it comes to your "inalienable rights". And that despite it being beneficial in terms of lives saved to ban guns, no state has outlawed the second amendment in any case because it is the constitution. The same is true with the First amendment and free speech that you mentioned in the other thread. Nobody has removed free speech. Terms and conditions doesn't restrict your free speech. You are free to go about and spout your conspiracy nonsense somewhere else. What they do however is give the user and business rules and guidance they they both sign up for in a contract in order to protect both of their best interests. You break the terms, your free speech isn't banned but you won't be able to use someone elses platform to speak them. The same way I cannot use cameras in the oval office to broadcast my free speech to the nation just because I want to tell everyone that Manning not Brady was/is the best quarterback to grace the NFL. So you can see that there is a huge difference outlawing/legislation free speech and granting a free platform to execute such a right.


Until you can understand the difference between an inalienable right and an unalienable Right, there's not much of a conversation here. Do try again as there is nothing "conspiratorial" about the facts. It just proves that when you can't understand it, you attack it. That's not how I operate it and won't bother responding to it. Do try again - civilly and respectfully if possible.
#15156014
ingliz wrote:Natural rights lack any ontological basis, except to the extent that they reflect the personal desires of those propagating them.

In proportion to the want of happiness resulting from the want of rights, a reason exists for wishing that there were such things as rights. But reasons for wishing there were such things as rights, are not rights; - a reason for wishing that a certain right were established, is not that right - want is not supply - hunger is not bread.

— Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies


:)


1) The Declaration of Independence rests on the observation that there are certain self evident truths

2) It has already been stated that we were founded on presuppositional principles

3) The American people and the entity called government agreed to the Rights in the social contract called the Constitution of the United States

4) Through fraud and duress, the people were separated from their unalienable Rights

5) The people have every moral and legal Right to demand their Rights and the government held accountable by making good on the guarantee OR we are no longer bound by the contract.
By B0ycey
#15156019
The Resister wrote:Until you can understand the difference between an inalienable right and an unalienable Right, there's not much of a conversation here. Do try again as there is nothing "conspiratorial" about the facts. It just proves that when you can't understand it, you attack it. That's not how I operate it and won't bother responding to it. Do try again - civilly and respectfully if possible.


Funny, I never actually insulted you. Nor did I attack you. It seems that is your goto strawman so you don't have to address any of the points I made. I did however summarize your definitions into a sentence so others don't need to read three posts that can be written down into a few lines. Are you even worth five minutes of my time? It seems to me you are just obtuse and upset the world left you behind. That isn't an insult by the way. That is a clear observation by the way you act.
#15156020
We've now gone 2 for 2. When the "racist" allegations didn't work, critics come here with a couple of fifty dollar words and an attempt to scream conspiracy theory. That was mostly a crock of B.S. in order to avoid my more substantive points.

You read what you think is a new idea and attack it before you understand it. I've been researching this for the better part of four decades and have successfully argued many of the points in courts. When you don't understand something, maybe a few questions are in order. And, yes, it took quite of paragraphs to convey the Cliff's Notes in three posts. It takes hundreds of pages to document each and every time the courts worked on "making new law." AND, if we had wanted new law, George Washington admonished us:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

In most cases this was not done. Rather, the change came about by reinterpreting the Constitution and nobody here can show you where the United States Supreme Court has the authority to reinterpret the law. Reinterpreting the original holdings is known as legislating from the bench. In the case of the 14th Amendment, it was illegally ratified; it did NOT address the issue it purported to do; the courts nullified the Rights of individuals and then claimed that the government grants you all your Rights (quite a departure from the Cruikshank holding). BTW, about a decade ago a white supremacist tried to explain the concept I've been sharing here and he most likely got a lot of his information from me. He doesn't get it exactly right, but I found the attempt to be admirable:

#15156022
B0ycey wrote:Funny, I never actually insulted you. Nor did I attack you. It seems that is your goto strawman so you don't have to address any of the points I made. I did however summarize your definitions into a sentence so others don't need to read three posts that can be written down into a few lines. Are you even worth five minutes of my time? It seems to me you are just obtuse and upset the world left you behind. That isn't an insult by the way. That is a clear observation by the way you act.


I didn't accuse you of insulting me. I said you attacked me. You took irrefutable FACTS and come out with conspiracy theory. I don't believe in a theory; I believe what can be proven in a court of law. When you do not know the difference between legal precedent and straw man, you are not qualified to criticize the points I just made.

No sir, I'm not worth five minutes of your time. I'm not going to change your mind and you cannot change mine. You gave your opinion and you will be far more effective spending your time with people you agree with. So see ya.
By late
#15156031
The Resister wrote:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

What the Hell? The Second Amendment is not "unlimited?"



The law is an attempt to balance competing rights and interests.

Like the judge said, most rights are not unlimited. If they were, you could buy a nuke at Walmart. No one sane wants that...

You are using obsolete language to try and rewrite the law.

It's cute, but it's BS, and trying to bury us in your BS won't help you.

This is bog standard kook territory. They are always trying to rewrite one thing or another. Climate science, for instance.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15156036
The Resister wrote:[I] have successfully argued many of the points in courts.

Please provide the case citations

To help you, here is an example of a case citation:

Hebb v. Severson, 201 P.2d 156 (Wash. 1948).


:)
#15156040
late wrote:The law is an attempt to balance competing rights and interests.

Like the judge said, most rights are not unlimited. If they were, you could buy a nuke at Walmart. No one sane wants that...

You are using obsolete language to try and rewrite the law.

It's cute, but it's BS, and trying to bury us in your BS won't help you.

This is bog standard kook territory. They are always trying to rewrite one thing or another. Climate science, for instance.


What kind of meaningless criticism is that? Thomas Jefferson stated:

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, (sic) and government to gain ground."

Nobody advocated that the Right to keep and bear Arms is inclusive of carrying a freaking nuke. OMG. What absolute silliness! If you want to change the Constitution, amend the damn thing already. Did you read the introductory posts or just go into attack mode with no regard for the facts?

Unalienable Rights are absolute Rights. Absolute is a synonym for unlimited. We've already been over this. The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man protects those Rights with the following language:

"In the founding of our country our forefathers claimed their independence on the presupposition that a Creator of mankind bestowed upon each individual with unalienable Rights. Unalienable Rights are those Rights that are above the reach of man. Those Rights are absolute, inherent, natural, irrevocable, pre-existing, as unlimited as possible, and not subject to any popularity vote that democracy can afford."

Regardless of how old a statute is, it is still the law. And, until a precedent is changed by a higher court, then the law rewritten by the legislature after the courts litigate the matter, it is still the law. You lack reading skills, so unless you have a criticism of substance, we can dismiss you as well.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15156041
The Resister wrote:Those Rights are absolute, inherent, natural, irrevocable, pre-existing, as unlimited as possible, and not subject to any popularity vote that democracy can afford.

The idea that persons have rights independent of and prior to the establishment of government is absurd.

Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense—nonsense upon stilts.

— Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies


:lol:
#15156048
ingliz wrote:The idea that persons have rights independent of and prior to the establishment of government is absurd.

Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense—nonsense upon stilts.

— Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies


:lol:


That absurd (sic) idea was a foundational principle upon which the Republic was founded. John Adams, a founder, framer, leader in the American Revolution, and second president of the United States stated:

"I say RIGHTS, for such they have, undoubtedly, antecedent to all earthly government—Rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws—Rights derived from the great legislator of the universe"

https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... -0052-0004

Thomas Jefferson, primary author of the Declaration of Independence wrote:

"...nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." in a letter to John Cartwright on 5 June 1824

i]By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect[/i].” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

And now I am having to repeat myself. You believe the founders, framers, and the courts were wrong, yet you live in what was once the greatest country in the entire world. Now, you seemed to be determined to live under a form of government destined to implode.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15156049
The Resister wrote:yet you live in what was once the greatest country in the entire world.

Malta?


:lol:
#15156051
ingliz wrote:Please provide the case citations

To help you, here is an example of a case citation:

Hebb v. Severson, 201 P.2d 156 (Wash. 1948).


:)


Try reading the thread already. I've already done it... over and over and over again. This thread is not lacking in case citations. Your reading skills obviously are not up to the task. Read the first three posts. They contain 11 case citations, 2 references to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) and I won't even count the quotes by founders and framers explaining the meanings thereof and how the first court decisions all the way up to the United States Supreme Court were consistent with the intent of the founders and framers. Learn how to read.
#15156055
Pants-of-dog wrote:@The Resister

Do all people have unalienable rights, or just US citizens?


When the Declaration of Independence was ratified, there was no such thing as a US citizen. The language in that document is unequivocally clear.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Only Zionists believe that bollocks and you lot ar[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]